To me, this movie is perfection.

So much average

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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.

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.

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

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."