It's hardly that modern pictures are generally lacking in any regard, yet as the visual experience was the absolute quintessence of the silent era, it so often seems that filmmakers of one hundred years ago went above and beyond to produce resplendent spectacles. Not all such titles are equal by any means, yet when it comes to more grandiose fare like historical epics - 'Scaramouche,' 'The Sea Hawk,' 'Cabiria,' or 'When knighthood was in flower' - it seems like no expense was spared to make the affair as rich and enticing as it could be. To that end, the sets are absolutely gorgeous and filled with fine detail, even outpacing some select filming locations, and the costume design, hair, and makeup are nary a step behind. To whatever extent means were more limited in 1922 it could be fairly argued that the artificiality of the presentation is more evident, yet with financing assumed by William Randolph Hearst, of all people, rest assured that any such infringement on suspension of disbelief is negligible. Everything to greet our eyes here looks utterly incredible, including even smart use of lighting, shadow, and tinting, and it's simply a bonus that this feature seems to have been better preserved than some of its contemporaries.
It sounds like a straight costume drama, and it mostly is, yet there's more than enough variety in the storytelling to help the proceedings to stay fresh throughout their two hours. The narrative is splendidly compelling in its own right as Mary Tudor, in love with a winsome young man, is promised by her brother King Henry VIII to Louis XII in a marriage of political convenience. There are plenty of peaks, valleys, and turns in that narrative to keep things interesting, and that would be sufficient; that we're also treated to elements of comedy, action, and adventure firmly cements the lasting entertainment value. Through it all Robert G. Vignola's direction is superb in orchestrating every scene to capture the appropriate mood, with some genuinely terrific shot composition on top. The cast give excellent, admirable performances, sometimes even breaking through the conventions seen early in the silent era (exaggerated body language and facial expressions) to illustrate the more natural, nuanced acting that became more common in the late years of the period heading into the sound era. This goes for Marion Davis above all; between the screenplay's treatment of Mary Tudor, Vignola's guidance, and the animated vitality of Davies' portrayal, a character that could have been a sorry, beleaguered damsel in distress is brought to life with a welcome, vibrant spirit of fiery determination and independence. True, I'm sure Davies' romantic involvement with Hearst had some influence, but I think there can be little dispute that beyond the magnificent sets and costumes, her performance may count among the top highlights of the production.
From stunts and some simple effects, to props and weapons; from the many, many extras, to the illustrations accompanying the intertitles, to every carefully laid thread, gem, and flower in the ornamentation, it's clear that every effort was made to make 'When knighthood was in flower' on a lofty, ambitious scale. I think it's safe to say that effort succeeded, because in all honesty the end result is more enjoyable and impressive than I expected when I sat to watch. Immense skill, intelligence, and hard work was poured into every corner of the production, and the finished product speaks for itself as a relatively dry premise is realized with earnest tension and excitement in addition to the undeniably marvelous craftsmanship. Even at that I can understand that this won't appeal to all comers; some folks have a harder time engaging with older cinema, and there was a time when I'd have said the same for myself. Yet in some measure I found myself assuming the viewing experience would be somewhat flat and dull, and what I got instead was a blend of drama, action, adventure, and comedy that stands squarely toe to toe with other movies of the time that presented with more outward liveliness. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an outright must-see, but when all is said and done the strengths are many and I fail to name any specific weakness, and I had a great time watching from beginning to end. While there are other silent films that I would prioritize as suggestions, I'm all so pleased that 'When knighthood was in flower' is as fun and engrossing as it is, and I'm happy to give it my very high and hearty recommendation!
It sounds like a straight costume drama, and it mostly is, yet there's more than enough variety in the storytelling to help the proceedings to stay fresh throughout their two hours. The narrative is splendidly compelling in its own right as Mary Tudor, in love with a winsome young man, is promised by her brother King Henry VIII to Louis XII in a marriage of political convenience. There are plenty of peaks, valleys, and turns in that narrative to keep things interesting, and that would be sufficient; that we're also treated to elements of comedy, action, and adventure firmly cements the lasting entertainment value. Through it all Robert G. Vignola's direction is superb in orchestrating every scene to capture the appropriate mood, with some genuinely terrific shot composition on top. The cast give excellent, admirable performances, sometimes even breaking through the conventions seen early in the silent era (exaggerated body language and facial expressions) to illustrate the more natural, nuanced acting that became more common in the late years of the period heading into the sound era. This goes for Marion Davis above all; between the screenplay's treatment of Mary Tudor, Vignola's guidance, and the animated vitality of Davies' portrayal, a character that could have been a sorry, beleaguered damsel in distress is brought to life with a welcome, vibrant spirit of fiery determination and independence. True, I'm sure Davies' romantic involvement with Hearst had some influence, but I think there can be little dispute that beyond the magnificent sets and costumes, her performance may count among the top highlights of the production.
From stunts and some simple effects, to props and weapons; from the many, many extras, to the illustrations accompanying the intertitles, to every carefully laid thread, gem, and flower in the ornamentation, it's clear that every effort was made to make 'When knighthood was in flower' on a lofty, ambitious scale. I think it's safe to say that effort succeeded, because in all honesty the end result is more enjoyable and impressive than I expected when I sat to watch. Immense skill, intelligence, and hard work was poured into every corner of the production, and the finished product speaks for itself as a relatively dry premise is realized with earnest tension and excitement in addition to the undeniably marvelous craftsmanship. Even at that I can understand that this won't appeal to all comers; some folks have a harder time engaging with older cinema, and there was a time when I'd have said the same for myself. Yet in some measure I found myself assuming the viewing experience would be somewhat flat and dull, and what I got instead was a blend of drama, action, adventure, and comedy that stands squarely toe to toe with other movies of the time that presented with more outward liveliness. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an outright must-see, but when all is said and done the strengths are many and I fail to name any specific weakness, and I had a great time watching from beginning to end. While there are other silent films that I would prioritize as suggestions, I'm all so pleased that 'When knighthood was in flower' is as fun and engrossing as it is, and I'm happy to give it my very high and hearty recommendation!