User Reviews

By 1922, it was an open secret that one of newspaper's most powerful publishers, William Randolph Hearst, was not only having an affair with one of Hollywood's top actresses, Marion Davies, but actually living with her. One aspect of the relationship raising eyebrows was his current marriage to Millicent Hearst, mother to their five sons. The illicit liaison didn't seem to impair Davies' public career; in fact, her popularity appeared to have thrived on the 'scandal:' she was voted number one actress by theater owners in 1922 for her marque value, bringing in the most viewing customers of any female film star.

Hearst, a mentor and handler to the actress, produced a number of Davies' movies. One motion picture where he financially went all in on was September 1922's release of "When Knighthood Was In Flower." The actress' role of King Henry VIII's sister forced under a treaty to marry the old French king was a departure from her normal comic ingenue parts. Davies had to display a certain amount of athleticism, not known for her physicality in the past. To prepare for one sword fighting sequence, she spent days learning how to fence. Additionally, her dramatic skills were put to the test when her character falls in love with a commoner, going against what a highly volatile Henry expressedly commanded.

No expense was too great for Hearst when he underwrote the film's production based on a 1898 best selling novel by Charles Major. The newspaper mogul was a stickler for authenticity: he constructed a large-scale medieval village complete with elaborate costumes for his hundreds of extras. For the short scene in the beginning where Davies arrives at King Henry's abode, he had built in Bridgeport, CT, a replica of a 16th-century boat. In all, Hearst spent a record $1.5 million on 'Knighthood,' including the most expensive marketing campaign ever seen in cinema to that time. He rented 650 billboards throughout New York prior to the film's release as well as 300 subway advertising sites. Souvenir books were sold by the thousands, and a huge electric sign with dazzling lights was set up in busy Times Square.

Hearst knew how to sell product, and to prove it, "When Knighthood Was In Flower" was a beneficiary of his pre-publicity campaign. The movie became the second highest box office winner for 1922, trailing only Douglas Fairbanks' 'Robin Hood.' The movie also earned praise with film critics, with even one British art dealer effusive about the motion picture, commenting it's "the most stupendous reproduction of Henry the Eighth court life that has ever been achieved - a marvelous piece of artistry."

What can be said about at the time the most expensive movie ever made with cost an estimated at $1.8 million. The pet project of the famous media magnate William Hearst, it is the tale of a woman, sister who defies all royal conventions, especially one; she falls in love with a commoner - Knight Charles Brandon - while bethrothed not of her choice, of course, to King louis XII of France. Action ensues as the forces of tradition conspire to keep them apart. The sets are very good and Marion davies is extremely good. When I watch a silent movie and I wish to hear what the actor is saying, then the performance is classic. Everyone else is adequate and passable. The director who isn't very good throws in a lot of gothic subtext and an unusual editing style of what I'll term "flash cutting" is used. Cinematography is especially wonderful. Deeper meanings or detailing beyond the obvious social strata innuities and foresight castigations of a by-gone era, is pitifully missing. Entertaining yes, action-packed - agreed but a bit quaint, unlike Robin Hood released around the same time but which holds up much better. (It alsao looks as if it cost more; it did not). But Garbo, Shearer and Dietrich did this too and theirs are better. Worth watching but watch out for sappiness in many moments. Just as a note, this movie was the biggest hit of the 1922-23 movie season, ahead of Robin Hood and Safety last.

I haven't looked at this in twenty years or so, and my memory was dim, but at the time I thought it was good but not great. Looking at the dvd of the Ben Model-Library of Congress-Jack Theakson-Steven Stanchfield restoration, I am agog at the clarity of the images, the beauty of the tints, and the care taken in the hand-coloring of the torches in the big chase at the end, the stupendous sets by Joseph Urban (who, Lara Gabrielle Fowler notes in the well-written booklet that accompanies the set, actually designed palaces in Europe) and the sumptuous clothing. Ben has added a handsome organ score based on the original offering at the Criterion in Manhattan. Like the original movie, nothing has been omitted to make this less than a landmark restoration.

The story is one of those melodramas of romantic piffle in costume that have long been popular. Marion Davies is Mary Tudor, young sister of Henry VIII, played by a suit seen in a Holbein picture, into which Lyn Harding has been stuffed. He is interested in marrying Marion to whichever ruler will serve his dynastic purposes, but she wants love, and settles on Forrest Stanley. When her engagement to the decrepit Louis XII is announced, she and Stanley try to flee to America; they are caught and Stanley is saved from a cheap and chippy chopper only by Marion's promise to marry Louis and not make a fuss. Unfortunately, the marriage takes its toll on the king, and the new king, played by William Powell, would have his way with her. As Tod Slaughter used to ask, will Heaven protect the working girl?

This sort of suffering-in-ermine story does not appeal to me, as I have made apparent in many another review. Even worse, for my taste, is the fact that the actors and their performances get lost in the immense sets and sumptuous costumes, so that it sometimes seemed that I was viewing a series of Flemish paintings -- not in the least aided by Robert Vignola's well-this-composition-worked-in-the-last-thirty-setups staging. It was almost an hour into the film, when Marion and Forrest are hiding out at an inn, that some of the clothing comes off and we get to see some acting. Otherwise, the only human moments seem to be the rare close-ups of the actors -- usually Marion in some immense pearl-studded miter -- lending more of an air of a tableau vivante, or even a good waxworks than a fillum.

I know that there is a large contingent of fans who will enjoy this movie just for those things which seem to me a distraction from good story-telling. These are the matters of likes and dislikes that we shrug our shoulders at. It doesn't lessen the amount of work and, indeed, the achievement of the restoration. The amount of labor and cooperation make it clear that, yes, we fans of these old movies can achieve something worthwhile. I can only hope that those of us who like this sort of thing will like it very much, and we can do more of these. Anyone for Dorothy Gish?

This 1922 production (now restored) was at the time the most expensive picture ever made. It was also a major box-office hit. Marion Davies plays Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII and intended bride of old Louis of France. But she's in love with the dashing Charles Brandon (Forrest Stanley). After Brandon is framed for murder, Mary agrees to bargain with Henry: he'll spare Brandon's life if she willingly marries old Louis. She counters that she will agree if she can choose her second husband. Henry agrees.

Mary goes off to France to marry old Louis (William Norris) but his nephew and heir (William Powell) has designs on beautiful Mary. After old Louis dies, the nephew pounces on Mary, but she escapes with Brandon's help in a race across France with an army in pursuit.

The breathtaking restoration on this film, with the original tinting scheme and digital hand-coloring restored, is a great achievement, one that lets us view this film as it was seen in 1922. The fabulous sets by Joseph Urban and costumes by Gretl Urban Thurlow make for a sumptuous film experience that enhances the exciting story of medieval court intrigue.

Marion Davies is nothing short of superb as Mary Tudor. She is willful, impetuous, determined, and throws herself into the role of the princess who, at one point, masquerades as a boy in an attempt to escape the English court of Henry. Forrest Stanley is a suitable Brandon, Lyn Harding is impressive as Henry. William Norris is terrific as old Louis. William Powell is appropriately oily as the king's nephew. Johnny Dooley plays the court jester who has an important scene.

Others include Ruth Shepley as Jane, Theresa Maxwell Conover as Queen Catherine, Flora Finch as a lady of the French court, Ernest Glendinning as Caskoden, Pedro de Cordoba as Buckingham, Arthur Forrest as Wolsey, Gustv von Seyffertitz as the soothsayer, Paul Panzer as captain of the guards, and William Kent as the court tailor. Nicely directed by Robert Vignola.

This is first and foremost a Marion Davies film, and she is spectacular. This new restoration (July 2107) is a must-see film for all fans of Davies in particular and silent films in general.

Marion Davies brings a sense of fun and adventure to the role of Mary Tudor, the younger sister of Henry VIII, who was forced into marrying the ageing French King Louis XII. The entertaining plot revolves around her attempts to avoid the marriage and elope with dashing officer Charles Brandon (Forrest Stanley).. A big hit when it was released - and also the most expensive movie ever made for a while - it is undeservedly overlooked today.

I was quite impressed with the restoration of Marion Davies's breakout picture When Knighthood Was In Flower. For its time the film is quite lavish and an awe inspiring spectacle. I wouldn't be surprised if William Randolph Hearst made sure that Paramount had whatever financing it needed to bring his Marion's breakout film to the big screen. The only thing that surprised me was that he didn't get Cecil B. DeMille to direct. But more than likely DeMille did not want to be second guessed by WR Hearst.

With or without DeMille this film is the definition of spectacle. Many of you have probably seen the Disney classic film The Sword And The Rose made during the 50s that starred Richard Todd as Charles Brandon and Glynis Johns as Mary Tudor with James Robertson Justice as Henry VIII. Marion Davies is Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII and a pawn in the power play game of medieval Europe.

Lyn Harding is Henry VIII and this is back in the day before he became changing wives like underwear and beheading a pair of them. He's married to Catherine of Aragon aunt of the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V whose many titles also included King of Spain and ruler of the Netherlands as well as all that German and Eastern European territory. Henry VIII thought that if he could get sister Mary hitched to the aged Louis XII of France he'd have things all sewed up alliance wise.

But Mary has a mind of her own. Marion Davies catches one look at Charles Brandon at jousting tournament and she decides this is the guy I want and I don't care if he's not noble.

The long forgotten Forrest Stanley is Charles Brandon. I'm sure WR Hearst didn't want a leading man getting all the attention in Marion's film. Time and the coming of sound have erased our memories of most of the cast. But William Powell plays Francis I of France who succeeded Louis XII when he died. This was Powell's second film and he's properly sinister as Francis. Not that Francis was any more or less bad than any of the other monarchs of the day including Henry VIII in real life. But Powell in his silent years played swarthy sinister villains and Francis I is done in the best Snidely Whiplash tradition.

Historically accurate its not. Anne Boleyn makes a brief appearance here as a girl Henry VIII was beginning to check out. Anne was a mere 13 when all this action is taking place and was not drawing Henry's or anyone else's attention yet.

It's been remarked that Davies's strong suit was a gift for comedy and she has a great old time fleeing from the king with her lover and going to a tavern in male drag. She has a great old time in this part of the film, you could tell Davies was enjoying herself.

I'm glad this film is now restored and we can see both Marion Davies and William Powell in their salad days.

Mary Tudor (Marion Davies), younger sister of King Henry VIII, as was the custom of the day for noblewomen, is to have an arranged marriage with a king in a foreign land to help cement alliances with England. But Mary falls in love with the captain of the king's guard, Charles Brandon. Ultimately she is pledged to old King Louis of France. She and Brandon escape with Mary disguised as a boy with the king and his men in hot pursuit - William Randolph Hearst liked Marion dressed as a boy and that is likely why this part is even in the film. Will they ever be together or will statecraft win the day? Watch and find out.

It sags dreadfully in the middle, and then near the end picks up the pace with a rousing and even humorous conclusion. It is reported to be the most expensive film made to date the time, and they get the period costumes just right. And although the story is close to historically correct, King Henry VIII is portrayed as he looked in a portrait by Hans Holbein that was painted in 1536 when Henry was 45 and obese. He was in fact only five years older than his sister Mary, but then audiences would likely not recognize or accept a slender and athletic young Henry VIII as he looked at the time this story takes place.

This was William Powell's second film appearance, and he turned out to be a very effective and menacing villain. And that's with me knowing what a warm and charming voice that he had, so I can just imagine how he impacted audiences of the day. Strangely enough this was both William Powell's and Gustav von Seyffertitz's next film after 1922's Sherlock Holmes.

Mary Tudor (Marion Davies) falls in love with Charles Brandon but is forced for political reasons by elder brother Henry VIII to marry the old and decrepit King Louis XII of France.

Nice, big budget sets and costumes, but Marion Davies seems the wrong actor for her role. As swashbucklers go, rather tame.

Although he is not remembered to-day for anything else but this production, Robert G. Vignola directed no less than 99 movies, starting way back in 1911 and continuing through to 1937. A look at "The Scarlet Letter" (1934) confirms the impression that he learnt his craft back in 1911 and stuck with it. Throughout the entire length of "When Knighthood", Mr Vignola does not move his camera so much as a single half-inch. Were it not for his fondness of editing constantly from a group shot to a tight two-shot, the whole movie is otherwise presented as if it were a stage play. Nonetheless, he does maintain the pace of his tale with admirable dexterity. I was amazed to find that I'd been glued to the screen for well over two and half hours. I thought I'd been watching the action for no more than 90 minutes.

Of course the overwhelming richness of the production, tight plotting that most effectively builds up to two separate climaxes, plus spellbinding acting (particularly from Miss Davies herself, Lyn Harding, William Norris and William Powell) all contributed to the movie's appeal. On the other hand, I thought Forrest Stanley made a rather dull hero; and the fact that he and Ernest Glendinning who played his friend, Caskoden, were virtually interchangeable look-a-likes did not help.

All told, however, this is a thrilling, engrossing and visually appealing production, and I can't wait until it's released on DVD with an appropriate music score.

Knights in Flowery Dresses is a masterfully costumed and filmed romp through the Court of the Crimson King. But it proves that as far back as 1922 William Randolph Hearst was spending lavish amounts of money trying to prove to the world Marion Davies could act.

Don't get me wrong. Davies was a gifted physical comic actress and mimic. When she's allowed to display those talents in movies, the movies are hugely entertaining. When Daddy Warbucks puts her in costume dramas, her complete lack of talent as a dramatic actor shines through.

I mean, if this is a drama, Davies doesn't act like she's in one. And if it's a comedy it's very unfunny. I know for sure it's not an epic because it barely leaves the castle.

Although the set design is elaborate and expensive, the film failed to hold my interest. Except for King Henry VIII's eyes, which appear to be made of chunks of coal. Very creepy.

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!