As swashbuckling a pirate movie as you can imagine, spanning 3 continents, as many cultures and 2 religions, it is also a charming historical piece. I won't be discussing the entire plot of the movie, just touching on a few things.
Though we often train ourselves to think that our forbears were stuffy and conservative while we are open-minded and liberal, this film, as so many silent films do, shows us differently. There are open statements about the falseness of Christianity *as practiced by the Christians as depicted in this movie*, and Islam is shown as a valid and equal alternative - you certainly wouldn't see any of that today! And it is the portrayal of Islam in the movie that prompted me to write, if only as a segment on a larger theme: historical accuracy. I'm not sure which was more interesting, the things they got right or those they got wrong.
I was amazed to see how very realistic the costumes looked - one of the men even looked as though taken out of a portrait of the Earl of Leicester (Queen Elizabeth's "boyfriend") in old age, right down to the dark streak in the middle of his rather oval beard. I'm not used to silent movies getting it right, costume-wise. But my "faith" was restored at the first sight of the heroine. She was laughably dressed in a hodge-podge of Tudor, Elizabethan and 20's shaped clothes. It's only her beauty that keeps you (okay, maybe just me) from laughing outright. Though her outfits do improve somewhat, they never reach anywhere near the accuracy of the men's, nor do any of the women's. Oh well; they're costumed enough so you get the general feel of what they are supposed to portray; I suppose I shouldn't try to demand more! I am not nearly as much of an expert on period Arabian clothes, but I do believe they got the armor (the helmets, for sure) correct. They certainly looked like what most people expect - sometimes a director has to go for that.
But when it came to Islam, and the customs of the surrounding culture, they were either amazingly accurate - like the marriage by declaration, and a married woman having to be veiled - or hysterically wrong. For instance, a young villain is said to be "harem-born & woman raised". It was silly to mention the first part - all babies are born where their mothers are - but the latter part would never have happened: boys were taken from their mothers by around age 7, especially boys of a ruling family; they would need to be trained in the arts of war and leadership. Then there was the amazingly convenient bit about how "Muslim law demands the captives be sold in the market place." Oh sure, tell us anything, what do we know? And the name "Fenzileh"?? Who comes up with these things? Same guy who came up with "Allahkibollah!" as an exclamation, I guess! :-) But I must stress that these errors are minor, and do not in any way detract from the movie as a whole. If anything, they add a bit of comic relief - if not as superb as that delivered by Wallace Beery, who amply demonstrates here how he came to be a lasting fixture in Hollywood. He is a stand out among the more usual posturing/gesturing done by most of the other players - none of whom can be truly faulted. I am sure that had not Milton Sills died so tragically young(ish), he would have been a major star for years to come.
Though we often train ourselves to think that our forbears were stuffy and conservative while we are open-minded and liberal, this film, as so many silent films do, shows us differently. There are open statements about the falseness of Christianity *as practiced by the Christians as depicted in this movie*, and Islam is shown as a valid and equal alternative - you certainly wouldn't see any of that today! And it is the portrayal of Islam in the movie that prompted me to write, if only as a segment on a larger theme: historical accuracy. I'm not sure which was more interesting, the things they got right or those they got wrong.
I was amazed to see how very realistic the costumes looked - one of the men even looked as though taken out of a portrait of the Earl of Leicester (Queen Elizabeth's "boyfriend") in old age, right down to the dark streak in the middle of his rather oval beard. I'm not used to silent movies getting it right, costume-wise. But my "faith" was restored at the first sight of the heroine. She was laughably dressed in a hodge-podge of Tudor, Elizabethan and 20's shaped clothes. It's only her beauty that keeps you (okay, maybe just me) from laughing outright. Though her outfits do improve somewhat, they never reach anywhere near the accuracy of the men's, nor do any of the women's. Oh well; they're costumed enough so you get the general feel of what they are supposed to portray; I suppose I shouldn't try to demand more! I am not nearly as much of an expert on period Arabian clothes, but I do believe they got the armor (the helmets, for sure) correct. They certainly looked like what most people expect - sometimes a director has to go for that.
But when it came to Islam, and the customs of the surrounding culture, they were either amazingly accurate - like the marriage by declaration, and a married woman having to be veiled - or hysterically wrong. For instance, a young villain is said to be "harem-born & woman raised". It was silly to mention the first part - all babies are born where their mothers are - but the latter part would never have happened: boys were taken from their mothers by around age 7, especially boys of a ruling family; they would need to be trained in the arts of war and leadership. Then there was the amazingly convenient bit about how "Muslim law demands the captives be sold in the market place." Oh sure, tell us anything, what do we know? And the name "Fenzileh"?? Who comes up with these things? Same guy who came up with "Allahkibollah!" as an exclamation, I guess! :-) But I must stress that these errors are minor, and do not in any way detract from the movie as a whole. If anything, they add a bit of comic relief - if not as superb as that delivered by Wallace Beery, who amply demonstrates here how he came to be a lasting fixture in Hollywood. He is a stand out among the more usual posturing/gesturing done by most of the other players - none of whom can be truly faulted. I am sure that had not Milton Sills died so tragically young(ish), he would have been a major star for years to come.