Scaramouche (1923) watch online HD

In the late 1700s France, Andre-Louis Moreau (Ramon Novarro) becomes a rebel against aristocracy after his friend is killed by the evil de la Tour d'Azy (Lewis Stone). Unfortunately the woman he loves Aline (Alice Terry) is part of the aristocracy.

Elaborate, well-directed with a cast of (seemingly) thousands this is a superb drama--it's just now getting its due on a stunning brand-new print showing on TCM. Alice Terry is just gorgeous as Aline--she's breath-takingly beautiful (that comes as no surprise--director Rex Ingram was her husband) and also one heck of an actress; Lewis Stone is convincingly slimy and cruel as the villain; best of all is Novarro. Easily one of the best-looking men ever it's easy to see why he was the top box office draw of his day. Looks aside, his acting was superb--he doesn't over emote (like some silent screen actors did) and was believable every step of the way. Sadly his career was destroyed because he was gay and homophobia was riding high at MGM. This man's acting and movies deserve some overdue recognition.

The movie moves at a brisk pace, there's never a dull moment and has a very moving finale (although I had guessed the two twists at the end). A definite must-see!

Fleeing from the wrath of the vengeful Nobility, a young Frenchman joins a troupe of actors. Winning fame as the clown SCARAMOUCHE, the stalwart fellow finds himself drawn into the events surrounding the start of the Revolution.

Following his big movie hit of the previous year - 1922's THE PRISONER OF ZENDA - director Rex Ingram discovered that cinematic lightning could indeed strike twice with this very fine adaptation of Rafael Sabatini's swashbuckling novel, "Scaramouche." Metro gave the production a high gloss, with excellent atmospherics, richly detailed exteriors & rousing mob scenes. It is always refreshing, in any epic film, to see every penny the studio invested represented on the screen.

Ingram reunited his principal cast from ZENDA - Ramon Novarro, Lewis Stone & Alice Terry - as stars for SCARAMOUCHE. Novarro, taking the hero role this time, proved he was no flash in the pan. Equally adept as sensitive lover or dueling revolutionary, with this performance Novarro was catapulted to Hollywood's upper ranks. Stone gives a finely nuanced performance as the villain of the story, slowly revealing layers to the man's personality not readily apparent at first. Miss Terry, who was Ingram's wife, is lovely, but the plot gives her little to do except look distressed or frightened.

In the supporting cast, special note should be given to George Siegmann, striking in the historical role of Danton. Edward Connelly, as the King's Minister, makes a marvelous grotesque.

It is interesting to note that Italian-born British author Rafael Sabatini (1875-1950) had been a novelist for many years before striking gold with "Scaramouche." Its popularity with the public, to say nothing of this acclaimed movie adaptation, pushed it permanently onto that small shelf of fiction (and films) - "A Tale of Two Cities," "The Scarlet Pimpernel" & ORPHANS OF THE STORM - forever associated with the French Revolution. Sabatini also wrote the swashbuckler adventure novels "The Sea Hawk" & "Captain Blood."

This 1923 adaptation of a mid-1921 novel is one of the most faithful-to-the-original screenplays I have ever seen. Granted, large blocks of the book are omitted or greatly condensed, but who wants a 20-hour movie? The basic story line is retained and well developed.

The cinematography is superb, and the print we saw on cable was sharp and clear. It shows there is no excuse for the foggy, low-contrast prints we see in so many of the early thirties films. The sets, costumes, performances, and overall production are outstanding for any era. The silent film has been provided with a fine score, and even with its limitations is infinitely superior to the 1952 so-called "remake," which is virtually no relation to the book.

The two-hour-plus production moves along briskly (with perhaps a few too many minutes of the final mob scenes) and is exciting. Suspense is maintained very well, though my wife anticipated the ending. It was hard to keep my previous knowledge of the plot to myself.

I loved this production and give it an enthusiastic and unqualified 10.

Sticking a whole lot closer to the Rafael Sabatini novel than the MGM remake with Stewart Granger in the Fifties, the silent Scaramouche was an important milestone in the career of Ramon Novarro. It was also one of the bigger moneymakers of Metro Pictures before it combined the following year as part of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer colossus. Novarro's box office appeal was one of the bigger assets the newly created MGM acquired.

Novarro strikes the right notes of passion, romance, and swashbuckling derring-do as the young lawyer of questionable parentage who starts an odyssey of adventure when he runs afoul of nobleman Lewis Stone when he calls him out after Stone who is a master swordsman kills young Otto Matieson in a one sided contest.

With the authorities looking for him in the France of Louis XVI, Novarro takes refuge in a troupe of strolling players and plays the famous clown character Scaramouche. Before the film France falls to the Revolutionary Terror and Novarro discovers his true heritage and his true love.

Scaramouche firmly established Novarro as the number one rival of Latin Lover Rudolphe Valentino. In fact Novarro seemed to be able to handle a bigger variety of roles in silent films than Valentino. Of course we'll never know what Valentino might have done in the sound era.

Lewis Stone as the villainous nobleman who is the bane of Novarro's existence is a far cry from Judge Hardy of Carvel, the ever wise father of Mickey Rooney and Cecilia Parker later on. But Stone from the time he was on stage before the Spanish American War handled a variety of parts in stock companies and Broadway. Those were the days where you had these local theater groups to learn your trade and Stone learned it better than most. He and Lionel Barrymore were mainstays in just about every MGM production of note while they were with the studio.

Scaramouche is a deserved silent classic and don't miss it when TCM decides to run it.

Ramon Novarro stars as André-Louis Moreau. Lewis Stone is Moreau's enemy, the Marquis de la Tour d'Azyr. And, Alice Terry is the woman they both love, Aline de Kercadiou. The story is set during the time of the French Revolution. The film begins with Mr. Stone as the Marquis de la Tour killing Mr. Novarro (Moreau's) best friend, which makes them great enemies. Enemies usually like the same woman; in this case, the coveted Ms. Terry (as Aline) creates the additional animosity.

This is a well-produced spectacle, from director Rex Ingram; the film obviously cost a fortune, and the money was well spent, creating a beautiful looking film. Mr. Ingram does a great job of pacing the approximately two hours of film; it retains much of its pace today, relative to other 1920s epics. Ingram's cinematographer John F. Seitz and star Ramon Novarro are indispensable. Mr. Seitz' photography is great, from the windmilly opening until the final conflicts. Some of the spectacular scenes are still terrific; but, some do look like they were staged to fit the movie screen, where everyone gathers for "Action!"

Mr. Novarro's lead performance is excellent; though, it might have been wise to let him use more of the ahead-of-their-time skills that are clearly evident. But, what's left is fine - best are the "looks" from the performers, which are not overacted (mostly). Lewis, Terry, and most everyone performs well. Novarro must join an acting troupe, by the way, while on-the-run - he becomes "Monsieur X" and play acts clown "Scaramouche", giving the film its title. Watch for the relationship between Novarro and a woman from the troupe, and the reason he finally rejects her (it parallels the major love triangle). Also, watch for two of the characters to startlingly look exactly like/alike the "shocking" second revelation at the end of the film.

******** Scaramouche (9/15/23) Rex Ingram ~ Ramon Novarro, Lewis Stone, Alice Terry, Lloyd Ingraham

Hats off to Rex Ingram. Scaramouche, like his other gorgeously mounted adventure sagas The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, The Prisoner of Zenda, or Ben-Hur (which he co-directed) illustrate clearly how the art of cinema took a body blow with the coming of sound, recovery from which took several years. The kinds of stunning compositions and environmental detail that were possible before the soundtrack era had to be jettisoned just for the sake of miking, so we lost much of this intensive artistry. Visually this film is every bit as impressive as Selznick's A Tale of Two Cities, or Korda's The Scarlet Pimpernel, both made well into the sound era over a decade later. Ingram was a visionary, right up there with Griffith, Stroheim and early DeMille. This film is beautiful right down to the title cards.

In this tale of the French Revolution we are treated to large doses of "The Masses," as in the later Selznick Tale of Two Cities. In fact, these masses are so vividly presented that one suspects that Selznick borrowed some of his imagery from Ingram. Like The Scarlet Pimpernel, Scaramouche is a participant in the events of the era. But whereas the Pimpernel used ingenious disguises and impersonations to save selected aristocrats from the guillotine, Scaramouche uses his position as popular comedic stage actor and skilled swordsman to rouse the masses to revolutionary action and successfully duel to the death with reactionary members of the National Assembly. Ramon Novarro, who plays the title character, was second only to Valentino as a heartthrob of the silent era but his countenance and manner were gentler. Lewis Stone, best known for his stern but benign elder patriarch roles in talkies, was once the dashing, chiselled-featured leading man on display here. Alice Terry as the love interest reminds us of how cinematic standards of beauty have changed. Her costuming and coiffure notwithstanding, there is a pre-20th-century quality to her, as if she stepped out of a painting or daguerrotype.

Had I never read the original novel "Scaramouche" by Rafael Sabatini and had I never seen the amazing Stewart Granger film of the 1950s, then I probably would have loved this silent movie. However, the book was so good and the Granger film so perfect that I found myself forever comparing this silent epic to the others and it usually came up short. In a way, that's sad, because it IS a very good film--especially compared to other films of the day.

The basic plot is set in the days just following the French Revolution of 1789. For a few short years, the country had still not slipped into radicalism and the country was ruled by a coalition of the old elite and young upstarts. Eventually, of course, most of the elite would be executed or run off to exile, but this film is set during the last gasps of the nobles--who STILL exercised some of their old clout.

Andre (Ramon Novarro) is an orphan who hobnobs with the upper crust but is definitely not one of them. When his best friend is murdered by an evil nobleman (Lewis Stone), he vows revenge and soon becomes a very outspoken critic of the rich. However, because of his outspokenness, he is marked for death and so he hides with a traveling theater company. He becomes very successful for the plays he writes as well as his rendition of the classic "Scaramouche" character. During this time, he also practices with the sword in the hopes of one day killing Stone. Eventually, his fame on stage increases so much that he is invited to serve in the Parlement. Plus, they want him because his swordsmanship is so good they figure he'll be able to protect himself--as the nobles are always dueling with their opponents killing them (a great way to deplete the non-elite class in Parlement).

All this leads to the expected ultimate showdown with Stone, though it ends differently than the Granger film and more like the original novel. In some ways, this isn't bad, but what is missing is the great sword fight between Novarro and Stone--it ends almost as soon as it begins! In the Granger version, the fight is the longest and best sword fight in film history and something you can't miss.

Apart from the fight that just fizzled, the film does have excellent sets, cinematography and musical score (something many silents do NOT have when shown today). It's good,...but I just can't help but prefer the sumptuous and more entertaining remake. This is one of the few cases when I do prefer a remake--so it just goes to show you how wonderful Stewart Granger's version is. If you only want to see one version of the film, see that one.

Those who are familiar with the well-known 1952 remake of "Scaramouche" might find it difficult to recognize it in this 1923 silent version. The story in this earlier and seldom-seen version is quite different in many respects. Many of the plot points are different, the names of some of the principal characters are not the same and some of the principal characters in this earlier version do not even appear in the remake. The earlier version is also quite different in tone, being rather more in the nature of Historical-Melodrama or Historical-Fiction than the later version, which is much more of a mere swashbuckler. However, the fact is that this earlier version is actually much more faithful to the original book than the remake.

Don't be put off by the fact that this is a silent film produced 90 years ago, because it's production values are excellent. Clearly no available expense was spared to make this production as lavish and authentic to the period (France during the French Revolution), as possible. The director, Rex Ingram, was about as good as one could find at the time.

The cast also features some first rate performers, including perennial MGM favorite Lewis Stone, who was probably with the studio longer than any other actor, so long that he appeared in the 1952 remake. The title role is played by Ramon Navarro, who was a major star in the 1920s. Like Rudolph Valentino, Navarro was a major leading man in the films of the 1920s, and had the title role in the silent version of "Ben Hur". However, unlike Valentino, who died young, Navarro continued to work for many years, though his career as a leading man waned after talkies came in. Navarro's problem in talkies was that he happened to be Mexican, and spoke with an accent.

All in all, "Scaramouche" comes off as a lavish and well produced melodrama set against the background of the French Revolution. The plot points and tone are so different that it should be rated alongside, rather than above or below, the better-known swashbuckling remake. This film is very well worth a look, especially to the many fans of the 1952 version.

Before anyone gets angry from the summary title, let me say this: I really enjoy the 1952 Scaramouche. It's the perfect remedy for stress, Eleanor Parker is gorgeous, the fencing is great, and overall it's one of my favorite adventure flicks from the 1950s. However, it doesn't work nearly as well as this silent adaptation does. This Rex Ingram adaptation has more focus on character development and the historical setting of the French Revolution which make it a more mature and engaging experience.

Ramon Novarro gives one of his greatest performances as the passionate and witty Andre Moreau. It makes me sad that he didn't get to do many more swashbuckling parts like this. Lewis Stone is also worthy of praise: though he could have just hammed it up and called it a day, he brings depth to the villainous Marquis. Alice Terry is given little to work with as the love interest Aline, but she does portray the character's struggle between ambition and love well.

Rex Ingram's films are usually beautiful, but this is the most gorgeous I've seen yet. The sets and costumes fit the period. Most classic films time stamp their historical pictures by letting modern day fashions seep through. Fortunately, this is not the case here.

And of course there's all the swashbuckling and adventure you could ask for. There's no climactic lengthy duel in a playhouse as there is in the talkie remake, but the amazing mob scenes are enough to compensate. There's so much energy in them that you cannot help but be swept up. The fencing is excellent too.

This is one of the best silent epics there is. If you liked the remake and would like to see a more serious, novel-accurate version, then get your hands on this right away!

Ramon Novarro (André-Louis), Alice Terry (Aline), Lewis Stone (the marquis), Lloyd Ingraham (André's godfather), Julia Swayne Gordon (the countess), William Humphrey (the chevalier), Otto Mattiesen (de Vilmorin), George Siegmann (Danton), Bowditch Turner (Le Chapelier), James A. Marcus (Binet), Edith Allen (Climene Binet), Lydia Yeamans Titus (Madame Binet), John George (little man in the Binet company), Nelson McDowell (Rhodomont), De Garcia Fuerberg (Robespierre), Roy Coulson (Murat), Edwin Argus (King Louis), Clothilde Delano (Marie Antoinette), Willard Lee Hall (king's lieutenant), Skavko Vorkapich (Napoleon Bonaparte), Lorimer Johnstone (Count Dupuye), Edwin Connelly (king's minister), Howard Gaye (Viscount d'Albert), William Dyer (brutal gamekeeper), J. Edward Brown (Benoit), Carrie Clarke Ward (Madame Benoit), Edward Coxen (Jacques), Rose Dione (flag- bearer of the Revolution), Arthur Jasmine (student), Tom Kennedy (dragoon), Carrie Daumery (gossip), Kalla Pasha (gate guard), B. Hyman, Louise Carver, Snitz Edwards, David Sharpe, Marjorie Reynolds, Jacques Tourneur.

Director: REX INGRAM. Screenplay: Willis Goldbeck. Based on the 1921 novel by Rafael Sabatini. Photography: John F. Seitz. Film editor: Grant Whytock. Art directors: John J. Hughes, Amos Meyers, Harold Grieve. Costumes designed by O'Kane Cornwell, Eve Roth, Van Horn. Titles designed by J. W. Robson. Production manager: Curt Rehfeld. Assistant director: Arthur Smith. Producer: Rex Ingram. A Rex Ingram Production for Metro Pictures.

Copyright 10 October 1923. New York opening at the 44th Street Theatre: 30 September 1923. 10 reels. 9,850 feet. 124 minutes.

COMMENT: A superb, wonderfully faithful, brilliantly directed, awesomely expensive condensation of the Sabatini novel which makes the 1952 re-make look like a shoestring effort. All the players acquit themselves with honor, although Lewis Stone succeeds in dominating the movie with his chilling impersonation of the callous marquis whose beautiful manners mask an intransigent heart. The sets are out of this world, the photography breathtaking. And Alice Terry looks stunningly radiant in her gorgeous costumes.

A year after The Prisoner of Zenda, Rex Ingram shoots another film with more or less the same team. This time, it takes place during the French Revolution. So we can se Alice Terry (Mrs Ingram), Lewis Stone and Ramon Novarro. But when you look closely, you can recognize Edward Snitz, John George, Edward Conelly... Scaramouche is the film where the story and the History collide. The story is the one of André Louis Moreau (Ramon Novarro), an orphan whose friend, a fighter for freedom, is killed in duel by the Marquis de la Tour d'Azyr (Lewis Stone). Moreau is also in love with Aline de Kercadiou (Alice Terry), the niece of the man who raised him. The History is the one of France. But it is rewritten by Hollywood. So, when you are French, you do not recognize your History. Before, there was Griffith's French Revolution (Orphans of the Storm, 1921), now there is Ingram's. This time, Robespierre is not a communist, but we can see a very ugly Danton (George Siegman), with his "pock-marked" face. There is also a very peculiar Parisian crowd: savage, shouting, bloodthirsty and greedy for aristocratic heads to fall. There are also the historic characters: Louis XVI, his wife Marie-Antoinette (and their children), Danton and Marat (Roy Coulson), and a young officer who watches silently, Napoleon (Slavko Vorkapich). Fortunately, we are interested in the story. Ramon Novarro is young, bold and handsome; Alice Terry is beautiful and cries easily; Lewis Stone is, as usual, very straight-up, and also a sort of villain, for he kills Moreau's friend. Once more, we have a fencing dual, but this time, it is better than in Zenda. But what strikes the spectator are the glittering eyes. In the first sequence, a dead man is brought back home. He was killed by the tyranny. We see his wife crying, the tears glittering in her eyes. Later, Moreau's eyes will glitter, when his friend is killed by de la Tour. IN every great moment of the film, we have these glittering eyes.

Time and space have a very strange aspect in this film. Indeed, when you know France, you do not understand everything. It seems that the likelihood has been put aside. The events happen in three locations: Gavrillac (a village in Brittany), Rennes and Paris. Gavrillac is the place where Moreau and Alice grow up . Rennes is where Moreau speaks about Freedom. This is also where he meets Marat, another famous actor of the Revolution (who does not look like him at all, except the cloth he wears on his head). Paris is where everything really happens, where everyone meets. This is where the Assembly is meeting; where the play Figaro-Scaramouche (written by Moreau) is performed; where Aline, de la Tour and Moreau finally meet. Unfortunately, if we recognize very well each location, there is a big problem of space: in 1789, you cannot ride from Rennes to Paris in one day! Nevertheless, the characters of the film can be on Sunday in Gavrillac or Rennes and on Monday in Paris! As for the Time of the film, I would prefer not to talk about it. One date is right: August the 12th, 1792. When the people of Paris invades the Tuileries Palace, creating in the same time a real bloodbath.

Despite all this, this Scaramouche movie has much charm. The fencing duel may be shorter than in George Sidney's movie (Scaramouche, 1952), it is nevertheless a great moment. The final revelation is quite amazing, and the actors were really well chosen. And, despite the fact that Moreau (and the script) is naive, we feel quite happy for him at the end.

The 1923 "Scaramouche" has all the elements of an epic film saga -- intricate and plausible sets and costumes, clearly drawn characters, ever more intense pacing -- but it just failed to catch fire for me. Maybe it's the way it makes no pretense of being anything but a big bundle of melodramatic clichés wrapped in a too-transparent plot. Too bad; it sure had potential. If you can see the Turner Classic Movie version, with the new score by Jeff Silverman, do so. It's how film scores should be created for silent pictures like these, absolutely in sync with the action but not slavishly commenting on every little detail. Usually it's a backhanded compliment to say that one finds one is losing oneself in the movie and not paying any attention to the score, but in this case, believe me, it's the mark of a resounding success.

You'd have a difficult time recognizing this as the same story that the 1952 version was built around. I read the novel when I was a kid but can't say how closely either version sticks to the book. All I remember of the novel is that Rafael Sabatini didn't know anything about fencing.

In 1952, Stewart Granger was Andre Moreau. His best friend, a social activist in pre-revolutionary France, is killed by an aristocrat who is a deadly swordsman, Mel Ferrer. The remainder of the movie has Granger on the run from the authorities, disguising himself as a comic figure in a traveling troupe, having an affair with one of the players, falling for a rich and delicate young lady, putting Herculean efforts into learning how to fence, and finally beating Mel Ferrer in a duel but allowing him to live.

I don't mean to carry on at too much length about the 1952 version but it's probably more familiar to viewers than the 1923 silent, with Ramon Navarro as the hero, Andre. After a few similarities in the first half hour, the plots pretty much diverge.

This version is at least equally expensive and it's well done for the time, but the emphasis is placed far more on politics than comedy or swordsmanship.

Here, Andre spends hardly any time playing Scaramouche on stage. We see him in costume for about two minutes, and he does nothing that convinces us he's a comic genius. In 1952, Granger knows nothing of the sword at first and has three encounters with Ferrer, the last one rolling, or rather tumbling along in a theater for about fifteen minutes. What a duel! As well done any any other I've seen on the screen, about as good as that in "The Mark of Zorro", but more lavishly staged and more extended. In 1923, Navarro also doesn't know anything about fencing but we see him taking a lesson for about one minute, after which he is an unbeatable master of the weapon.

The 1923 climax has nothing to do with a duel between the hero and the chief heavy. It has to do with the French revolution, into which Navarro has been swept up. The French nobility were bad enough, you know. "Let them eat cake!" All the noblesse and none of the oblige.

But, caramba, the mob that took over was crazed and drunk and given to beheading everybody they could get their hands on. Not only did King Louis XVI get the guillotine but so did Robespierre, one of the fomenters of the revolution. Not that you see any executions in the film, just the outraged savages doing what outraged savages always do in these movies -- smash furniture.

Anyway, the climax is shifted from a duel mano a mano to the epic story of the revolution and its immediate aftermath.

This isn't a bad film, but I prefer the remake -- one of the rare times when the second version is as good, or better, than the original. It just happens to be one of those stories that benefit from OverwhelmoColor and sound. In 1952, the tinks of the metal swords meeting were created by the tinkling of crystal glass. The 1923 is good; the 1952 is phenomenal.

This is a well known film to most silent film buffs. Rex Ingram films his scenes like a painter. Ingram uses his camera like a paint brush. Indeed some of the scenes look like paintings come to life. This film is based on the novel by Rafael Sabatini and stars Ramon Novarro, one of Ingram's favorite actors. It costars Ingram's wife Alice Terry. This film boasts a cast of many well-known silent film supporting actors. An historical subject, Ingram gives great care to accuracy of costumes & history. The score for the film is adequate but tends to drone a bit. Surprisingly Ingrams camera can still be quite static which reminds one of DW Griffith's "Orphans of the Storm"(1921). Both 'Orphans' and 'Scaramouche' take place at the same tiime so a similarity is logical. The picture was made at Metro Studios just prior to the famous merger with Goldwyn & Mayer. Luckily this film survives today to be enjoyed. Rex Ingram, Metro Pictures.

My TCM print has excellent picture quality, but the score is not up to scratch; it mainly fails to bring out the action of the film or direct the viewers reaction to what is on the screen; occasionally it succeeds, but overall is not very inspiring-- which describes the whole film, really. They may be historically accurate, but the costumes are dull,Alice Terry is no great beauty and Novarro, in his first major role, looks stodgy and not yet in possession of the looks which later led him to be described as "more beautiful than any man has the right to be!" Lewis Stone plays an arrogant but truly noble aristo who finally sacrifices himself for the benefit of those he loves. The mob scenes, where aristocrats are assaulted by the furious revolutionaries give a real sense of how frightening the experience must have been, but, as usual, no mention is made of the fact that, under "The Terror" , more common folks were guillotined than nobles. The film picks up pace in the second half, but I suspect that those familiar with the Sabatini novel will enjoy it more.