Every once in a while, I experience a movie such as "The Life of David Gale" or "Slumdog Millionaire", enjoyable for the most part and then at three or four minutes away from the ending, it goes downhill. I didn't expect such a similar reaction from a movie of the early 20s but movies like "Way Down East" or "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" taught me not to underestimate early silent movies. So regarding the star-making and defining role of Rudolph Valentino, my disappointment was proportional to my anticipations.
And don't get me wrong, I had quite realistic expectations: I knew Valentino would be as believable an Arab Sheik as John Wayne a Mongol Chief. I also expected the portrayal of Arabs as slave-trading and women-shaming people, submissive and/or barbarian, at the far end of the Western spectrum of civilization. But there's something about the Sahara or the Arabic Orient as settings: they're no Venice or Paris, they're so antithetic to the traditional notion of romance that they became reversely romantic like an exit for lost souls, an oasis in an existential desert setting the tone of a passionate romance, worthy of its inclusion in the AFI's Top 100 Passions.
And when you have as a female lead a noble adventurous Englishwoman, Lady Diana Mayo (Agnes Aryes), in quest for thrills and who just rejected her beau's proposal and Sheikh Ahmed Ben Hassan who can have any woman with a snap of his fingers, you know only a fiery and irrational passion can grow from such contradicting parameters. And from what I read about the original novel, written by E.M. Hull, the romance started with the most abject and objectionable aspects: rape. It's weird to know that such romances, much more written by female, could explore such dark realms to make a romance out of them, but the novel also made a feminist point through a woman who could surrender to violence but would never never trade her dignity.
So the film toned down the rough material but as far as Arabs were concerned, it codified many tropes, and not the nicer ones. We get the sheikh as an egomaniac spoiled tyrant, lusting over white women, surrounded by knife-wielding bodyguards and dancing gazelles in a harem, a not so flattering portrait. But "The Sheikh" is a romance and a drama that can't indulge too long for "Looney Tunes" or "Popeye" cartoons' caricature though it wasn't much the portrayal of Arabs that shocked me, after all, while I'm writing this, Saudi Arabia is tarnished by a scandal involving an ethically challenged sheikh-type leader. No, ironically, the most unbelievable thing was Valentino as a Sheik, which doesn't diminish his performance.
I can see how this film launched his reputation as a sex symbol, there was something electrifying in his wide-eyed looks, channeling a weird Johnny Depp-esque feel, his awkwardness and effeminate charm while belonging to a supposedly ruthless breed of men create the most disorienting effect, accentuated by the fact that the other actors, especially Adolphe Menjou, don't overact. I guess that could make up for exotic charm not to be taken for granted, Mayo doesn't fall in love immediately and the film has the premise of a "Romeo and Juliet" with the Stockholm syndrome narrative of "Beauty and the Beast". It's weird but fascinating at the same time, and we can feel that only passion would blossom from such contradictions.
The sexual tension is palpable to a disturbing level, Ahmed wants to possess Diana but because she doesn't give herself too easily (like an Arab woman), his ego is hurt, his desire to possess her despite a "no" turns into a wish to attenuate her resistance. It's a real clash of civilization that is sadly relevant today in terms of gender-issues, but Hull's controversial take was that women might appreciate the "Oriental touch". That's how much fantasy was projected into that adventurous romance and that's what I love in movies: contradictions rooted in the depths of our complex psyche, showing people as Barbarians while conceding that it's got a charm of its own. Talk about values dissonance!
Retrospectively, "The Sheikh", like the Arabian Nights has spread a few positive stereotypes emphasized by the slow redemption of Sheikh Ahmed and his heroism when Diana becomes a more traditional damsel-in-distress figure. So the film reminded me of the last movie I reviewed: "The Dictator", for all the negative depiction of Arabs, the character was so sympathetic he made the film immune to anti-Arab accusation. So did Sheikh Ahmed who was the romantic lead after all but then at the end, we learn he's half English, half Spanish. There's not one ounce of Arabic DNA in him. And the more I dig into that revelation, the more disturbing it is.
Since it had no weight whatsoever in the romance, or in the plot, was it a nod to viewers or critics, as a way to make the love story more acceptable? Or was it a way to justify his lack of brutality because he had 'civilized' blood? When the only sympathetic Arab character isn't even Arab, the milk turns rapidly sour. And it goes the other way around too, if the rape from the novel wasn't toned down, would have the revelation been kept? In Hull's novel, the Sheikh's behavior was explained by his hatred toward Englishwomen because of what his father did to his mother, which spoke something about the universality of violence and bad behavior.
But George Melford went for the easy way: let's make Arab look bad, though not too bad for the Sheikh... but that's only because he's not an Arab. And that's how the film goes from "Romeo and Juliet" to "Beauty and Beast" only to end in a vulgar "soap opera" tone. Was I disappointed? I admit the film has historical significance in the way it inspired oriental romances such as "Morocco", "Algiers", "La Bandera" or "The English Patient", but so much for the intercultural bonding!
And don't get me wrong, I had quite realistic expectations: I knew Valentino would be as believable an Arab Sheik as John Wayne a Mongol Chief. I also expected the portrayal of Arabs as slave-trading and women-shaming people, submissive and/or barbarian, at the far end of the Western spectrum of civilization. But there's something about the Sahara or the Arabic Orient as settings: they're no Venice or Paris, they're so antithetic to the traditional notion of romance that they became reversely romantic like an exit for lost souls, an oasis in an existential desert setting the tone of a passionate romance, worthy of its inclusion in the AFI's Top 100 Passions.
And when you have as a female lead a noble adventurous Englishwoman, Lady Diana Mayo (Agnes Aryes), in quest for thrills and who just rejected her beau's proposal and Sheikh Ahmed Ben Hassan who can have any woman with a snap of his fingers, you know only a fiery and irrational passion can grow from such contradicting parameters. And from what I read about the original novel, written by E.M. Hull, the romance started with the most abject and objectionable aspects: rape. It's weird to know that such romances, much more written by female, could explore such dark realms to make a romance out of them, but the novel also made a feminist point through a woman who could surrender to violence but would never never trade her dignity.
So the film toned down the rough material but as far as Arabs were concerned, it codified many tropes, and not the nicer ones. We get the sheikh as an egomaniac spoiled tyrant, lusting over white women, surrounded by knife-wielding bodyguards and dancing gazelles in a harem, a not so flattering portrait. But "The Sheikh" is a romance and a drama that can't indulge too long for "Looney Tunes" or "Popeye" cartoons' caricature though it wasn't much the portrayal of Arabs that shocked me, after all, while I'm writing this, Saudi Arabia is tarnished by a scandal involving an ethically challenged sheikh-type leader. No, ironically, the most unbelievable thing was Valentino as a Sheik, which doesn't diminish his performance.
I can see how this film launched his reputation as a sex symbol, there was something electrifying in his wide-eyed looks, channeling a weird Johnny Depp-esque feel, his awkwardness and effeminate charm while belonging to a supposedly ruthless breed of men create the most disorienting effect, accentuated by the fact that the other actors, especially Adolphe Menjou, don't overact. I guess that could make up for exotic charm not to be taken for granted, Mayo doesn't fall in love immediately and the film has the premise of a "Romeo and Juliet" with the Stockholm syndrome narrative of "Beauty and the Beast". It's weird but fascinating at the same time, and we can feel that only passion would blossom from such contradictions.
The sexual tension is palpable to a disturbing level, Ahmed wants to possess Diana but because she doesn't give herself too easily (like an Arab woman), his ego is hurt, his desire to possess her despite a "no" turns into a wish to attenuate her resistance. It's a real clash of civilization that is sadly relevant today in terms of gender-issues, but Hull's controversial take was that women might appreciate the "Oriental touch". That's how much fantasy was projected into that adventurous romance and that's what I love in movies: contradictions rooted in the depths of our complex psyche, showing people as Barbarians while conceding that it's got a charm of its own. Talk about values dissonance!
Retrospectively, "The Sheikh", like the Arabian Nights has spread a few positive stereotypes emphasized by the slow redemption of Sheikh Ahmed and his heroism when Diana becomes a more traditional damsel-in-distress figure. So the film reminded me of the last movie I reviewed: "The Dictator", for all the negative depiction of Arabs, the character was so sympathetic he made the film immune to anti-Arab accusation. So did Sheikh Ahmed who was the romantic lead after all but then at the end, we learn he's half English, half Spanish. There's not one ounce of Arabic DNA in him. And the more I dig into that revelation, the more disturbing it is.
Since it had no weight whatsoever in the romance, or in the plot, was it a nod to viewers or critics, as a way to make the love story more acceptable? Or was it a way to justify his lack of brutality because he had 'civilized' blood? When the only sympathetic Arab character isn't even Arab, the milk turns rapidly sour. And it goes the other way around too, if the rape from the novel wasn't toned down, would have the revelation been kept? In Hull's novel, the Sheikh's behavior was explained by his hatred toward Englishwomen because of what his father did to his mother, which spoke something about the universality of violence and bad behavior.
But George Melford went for the easy way: let's make Arab look bad, though not too bad for the Sheikh... but that's only because he's not an Arab. And that's how the film goes from "Romeo and Juliet" to "Beauty and Beast" only to end in a vulgar "soap opera" tone. Was I disappointed? I admit the film has historical significance in the way it inspired oriental romances such as "Morocco", "Algiers", "La Bandera" or "The English Patient", but so much for the intercultural bonding!