Of the various Arliss biographies, THE IRON DUKE is the weakest one. It is about Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, who is recalled for his excellent handling of the British troops in Portugal and Spain against the French in what is called "The Peninsula War" (1809 - 1813), his leading the allied forces in finally defeating Napoleon I in the battle of Waterloo (June 1815), and his post-war political career, culminating in his three year Premiership of England (1828 - 1830). His main accomplishment as Prime Minister was to get Catholic Emancipation granted in Parliament.
Problem (as pointed to on another comment here) is that Wellington was in his late 40s and early 50s in the period this film deals with (1814 - 1816). Arliss is far too old for the role. He is also too short (C. Aubrey Smith who played the role opposite Arliss in HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD was closer in age to the role, and physically closer). Christopher Plummer's Wellington in WATERLOO is also closer to the Iron Duke, in age and physical condition.
The story deals with what Wellington did to stop Napoleon and in the immediate period after. He was appointed to be British ambassador to France, and to advise the French government of Talleyrand and the Bourbons (under King Louis XVIII, oldest surviving brother of Louis XVI) on setting up their restored monarchy. In truth, King Louis and Talleyrand did not need much help from Wellington, but in one area they made a critical decision that almost sank the regime. This was the "Ney Affair".
When Napoleon returned from the Isle of Elba in March 1815, he quickly regained thousands of followers throughout France. Most of the old military leadership did not return to Napoleon's standard, because King Louis was smart enough to offer an olive branch to them, and incorporate them into his court. One who got a high military post was Marshall Michel Ney. Ney was Napoleon's most popular general, known as the "Bravest of the Brave". He decided to return to Napoleon's side. He fought under Napoleon in the last campaign, and was one of the defeated at Waterloo (leading the last charge against the British).
Ney was arrested by order of King Louis. In 1816 he would be tried for treason, and (after a trial) convicted and shot. The French public was very angry about this decision, and it did hurt the Bourbon restoration. However, King Louis was smart enough to weather the storm. In 1824 the King died, and his brother became King Charles X. Unfortunately Louis' abilities at weathering political storms was not shared by Charles, who would be toppled in 1830 by his cousin, Louis Phillippe of Orleans.
The film suggests that Wellington was opposed to the judicial killing of Ney, because he respected the bravery of his old opponent, and he saw the vicious action behind it due to the Duchess d'Angouleme (Louis' niece, and the only surviving child of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette). In fact, Wellington did not get involved (he really did not have any legal standing to get involved, even as a friendly observer/adviser to King Louis). But this is the plot of the film.
The cast, aside from Arliss, is mediocre, except the Duchesse is played by Dame Gladys Cooper - who certainly shows a fanatical vicious streak towards any "revolutionary" heroes. But in one scene, one appreciates what Arliss accomplished as an actor. Arliss believed in a natural, slightly hesitant style of acting that rarely became bombastic. If he had to display anger, he could do so by raising his voice normally. But he did not like the outlandish over-theatricality of Victorian and Edwardian acting that was the norm in it's day.
At one point, the actor playing King Louis (Alan Aynsworth) is scared by the overly hostile reaction of the French people to the execution of Ney. Arliss is at the court, lecturing them on the blunder they have committed. He is speaking sternly, but normally. But Aynsworth is chewing the scenery in despair at the blunder! If you see the film watch Arliss's eyes looking at Aynsworth. He is really angry at this overacting ham. It is a moment of revelation at how George Arliss did know what good acting and what bad acting really was. It is also the most interesting moment of this weakest of his biographical films.
Problem (as pointed to on another comment here) is that Wellington was in his late 40s and early 50s in the period this film deals with (1814 - 1816). Arliss is far too old for the role. He is also too short (C. Aubrey Smith who played the role opposite Arliss in HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD was closer in age to the role, and physically closer). Christopher Plummer's Wellington in WATERLOO is also closer to the Iron Duke, in age and physical condition.
The story deals with what Wellington did to stop Napoleon and in the immediate period after. He was appointed to be British ambassador to France, and to advise the French government of Talleyrand and the Bourbons (under King Louis XVIII, oldest surviving brother of Louis XVI) on setting up their restored monarchy. In truth, King Louis and Talleyrand did not need much help from Wellington, but in one area they made a critical decision that almost sank the regime. This was the "Ney Affair".
When Napoleon returned from the Isle of Elba in March 1815, he quickly regained thousands of followers throughout France. Most of the old military leadership did not return to Napoleon's standard, because King Louis was smart enough to offer an olive branch to them, and incorporate them into his court. One who got a high military post was Marshall Michel Ney. Ney was Napoleon's most popular general, known as the "Bravest of the Brave". He decided to return to Napoleon's side. He fought under Napoleon in the last campaign, and was one of the defeated at Waterloo (leading the last charge against the British).
Ney was arrested by order of King Louis. In 1816 he would be tried for treason, and (after a trial) convicted and shot. The French public was very angry about this decision, and it did hurt the Bourbon restoration. However, King Louis was smart enough to weather the storm. In 1824 the King died, and his brother became King Charles X. Unfortunately Louis' abilities at weathering political storms was not shared by Charles, who would be toppled in 1830 by his cousin, Louis Phillippe of Orleans.
The film suggests that Wellington was opposed to the judicial killing of Ney, because he respected the bravery of his old opponent, and he saw the vicious action behind it due to the Duchess d'Angouleme (Louis' niece, and the only surviving child of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette). In fact, Wellington did not get involved (he really did not have any legal standing to get involved, even as a friendly observer/adviser to King Louis). But this is the plot of the film.
The cast, aside from Arliss, is mediocre, except the Duchesse is played by Dame Gladys Cooper - who certainly shows a fanatical vicious streak towards any "revolutionary" heroes. But in one scene, one appreciates what Arliss accomplished as an actor. Arliss believed in a natural, slightly hesitant style of acting that rarely became bombastic. If he had to display anger, he could do so by raising his voice normally. But he did not like the outlandish over-theatricality of Victorian and Edwardian acting that was the norm in it's day.
At one point, the actor playing King Louis (Alan Aynsworth) is scared by the overly hostile reaction of the French people to the execution of Ney. Arliss is at the court, lecturing them on the blunder they have committed. He is speaking sternly, but normally. But Aynsworth is chewing the scenery in despair at the blunder! If you see the film watch Arliss's eyes looking at Aynsworth. He is really angry at this overacting ham. It is a moment of revelation at how George Arliss did know what good acting and what bad acting really was. It is also the most interesting moment of this weakest of his biographical films.
