User Reviews

Producer: Sam Goldwyn. Copyright 24 January 1940 by Samuel Goldwyn. Released through United Artists. Presented by Samuel Goldwyn. New York opening at the Roxy: 12 January 1940. Australian release: 2 May 1940. 8 reels. 6,444 feet. 71½ minutes.

SYNOPSIS: Social cricketer takes up jewel thieving for fun and profit.

NOTES: William Wyler directed the cricket scenes. F. Scott Fitzgerald also worked on the script, but contributed little of significance.

COMMENT: Ernest William Hornung was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's brother-in-law. What more natural than that he should pen a rival series of stories featuring a thief instead of a detective? Like Sherlock Holmes, these stories were originally published in a monthly periodical. Like Sherlock, they are narrated in the first person by an accomplice of the principal character. There, unfortunately, the similarity stops. Hornung's writing style is always bland and often long-winded, his characterization weak and his dialogue dull. The plots have little sting and are often resolved by a most disappointing let-down.

His first book collection, entitled simply Raffles (1899), contains fourteen short stories. The first eight were part of the original magazine series. The remaining six form a "Return of Raffles". The film script doesn't touch upon any of these last six stories at all. Instead it is largely based upon the two stories that are connected: "Gentlemen and Players" and its sequel, "The Return Match", plus a substantial part of "The Ides of March" and a single, chance idea from "Nine Points of the Law". (The most exciting story, "A Costume Piece" in which Raffles adopts some effective, Holmesian-style disguises is not used at all.)

Howard and Van Druten have done a marvelous job combining these stories and the resulting film very faithfully reflects Hornung's original - right down to the weak climaxes. Of course the characterizations in the film - helped as they are by the endeavors of a first-rate cast - are far more exciting.

Niven (in his first starring role) is exactly right for the true-blue sporting blood, A.J. Raffles. It's a role he was born to play and he loses not a single opportunity to be charming, witty and gallant on the one hand, roguish, twinkle-eyed and cunningly resourceful on the other. Miss de Havilland has little to do but look decoratively uncomfortable, while Dame May Whitty gives her usual vigor to a characteristically strident dowager. Dudley Digges has one of the film's meatiest parts which he puts over with such unsubtle insinuations as to compel attention even in his less dramatic scenes.

Aside from Douglas Walton (who makes Bunny far too weak a character), the rest of the players led by Lionel Pape's Lord George are solidly supportive, although Peter Godfrey (soon to become a major director) overdoes the Cockney accent and mannerisms. His Crawshay (as written and played) is too much a caricature - a fault that is not found in the book.

As we might expect from Sam Goldwyn, the film is immaculately produced. Photography, sets, costumes are most attractive. Wood stepped into the director's chair straight from his stint on Gone With The Wind. From all accounts, he was worn out. (William Wyler directed the cricket scenes when he was off ill for a few days). And Raffles looks like the work of a tired man. The direction is flat, straightforward and pedestrian. Not only are the camera angles persistently routine and unimaginative, but the pace is slow and the editing slack. The whole film lacks sparkle.

And as for those weak climaxes! It's one thing to get the hero into those all-odds-against him situations, but we expect the writers to extricate him with a modicum of ingenuity. This, they signally fail to deliver.

OTHER VIEWS: Slight, but entertaining and filmed with impeccable taste. As usual, producer Samuel Goldwyn has surrounded himself with the very finest writers, technicians and players. One couldn't help but make an enjoyable film with such a tower of talent! The acting especially is delightful, with Niven exactly right as the charming if rascally Raffles, while Dudley Digges, his watchful nemesis, burrs away with a hearty Scottish accent.

While this is certainly a gorgeous-looking remake of the 1930 version with Ronald Colman and Kay Francis, it lacks the romantic atmosphere and glamour of the original version. It is not just the fact that this is a remake of a nearly 10 year old film, nor is it because of a lack of chemistry between the stars. Something just isn't there even though all attempts to recapture the magic of the original was vigilantly pursued. Virtually done scene for scene, it has no originality of its own and thus ends up being better only in its technical sharpness.

The same year that he played the rather boring husband of Merle Oberon in the excellent screen adaption of "Wuthering Heights", David Niven brought to life the character of The Amateur cracksman AKA Raffles, a man about town in 1939 London who attracts local attention wherever he goes. he is so close to Ronald Colman in demeanor and attitude that it's virtually impossible to tell them apart. Thus, he is excellent. While Olivia de Havilland is certainly lovely as his socialite girlfriend, she doesn't really play an interesting character and doesn't have the spirits that Kay Francis brought to the original. The two certainly have chemistry, but considering that's the same here, she want to claim for playing Melanie in "Gone With the Wind", this seems like just a minor blip on her film credits.

With Niven excellent and de Havilland rather unremarkable, this leaves The Supporting Cast to provide some fun characterizations and that happens with the presence of Dudley Digges as a Scotland Yard investigator, Dame May Whitty as de Havilland's pesky aunt, and E.E. Clive as Nivens very droll valet. Whitty has many amusing moments whether complaining about her husband snoring through a symphony or commenting on the one maid she like simply because she doesn't breathe on her, Whitty is hysterical. this has so much going for it, but even if I hadn't seen the original first, I would notice that there was something lacking that prevents this from being a complete success.

This second sound film of E.W. Hornung's gentleman thief, A.J. Raffles, follows the 1930 film that starred Ronald Colman and Kay Francis. Samuel Goldwyn produced both films, just nine years apart. So, he must have wanted to try a better, more thorough screenplay, or try an entirely different cast. Or, judging from this film, it was a little of both and maybe some other aspects.

This "Raffles" is a better production with a tight, well-written screenplay. It doesn't have the holes that the early version had. It has some characters developed more and others less. As with the first film, all the actors are fine. But two stand out here – Olivia de Havilland as Gwen and E.E. Clive as Barraclough. Both have meatier roles and some very good lines. On the other hand, the Lord and Lady Melrose characters are much toned down in this version compared to the 1930 film. It's not bad, but they miss some good lines between them. Dudley Digges as MacKenzie is more prominent as a thinking detective here, whereas David Torrence was more cock sure of himself and funny in a boastful way.

David Niven is OK as Raffles, but I would like to have seen Ronald Colman reprise his role in this film. With his extra sprightliness in the role, A.J. Raffles would have seemed more the daring burglar than does Niven. And, I think Colman and de Havilland would have made a more striking couple. Still this film for its screenplay and quality is a notch above the 1930 version.

And, there is one thing in this movie that adds historical value to it. It would have stood out to audiences at the end of 1939 more than anything else. Most people watching this decades later don't notice or give it a thought. But it would have been a huge surprise to audiences then. And that's the TV set in the movie. In an early scene, the chief of Scotland Yard turns on a console television set that is broadcasting a cricket match in London. This was at a time when TV was hardly known anywhere in the world. The acronym, TV, was not yet a household word.

Sure, people would have heard and read about development of moving pictures that could be sent over the airwaves. They would have read the news about experimental TV stations in the early 1930s. TV was being researched and developed in England, Germany and the U.S. But it was greatly slowed down by the worldwide Great Depression (1929- 1941). In 1928, a company in New York sent the first TV images over the air. In 1936, the BBC began broadcasting from its first station at Victoria Alexandra Palace in the north of London. Germany broadcast the 1936 Summer Olympic games to 28 public television rooms in Berlin and Hamburg. And TV broadcast Pres. Franklin Roosevelt opening the New York World's Fair in 1939. And after this film, TV would be further delayed by World War II.

At the end of 1939, when this movie came out, there were no more than 5,000 TV sets in the U.S., and far fewer in England. Most of those were located in bars and hotel lobbies. More than two-thirds were in New York. In 1946, after the war, there still were only six TV stations in the entire U.S. Three were in New York City, and one each was in Chicago, Philadelphia and Schenectady, NY.

So, if what we see in this film is an actual TV, it must be the very first movie made that shows a television set. And, it's not just any set. It's a deluxe, large screen model. It looks to be 17 to 20 inches. The first one my family had – in 1949, was a 9-inch screen. If this movie was made at the MGM studios in Hollywood, Goldwyn may have acquired one of the first TV sets in the Los Angeles area. But it's not very likely that the cricket match had really been shown on TV. It probably was the replay of a film of a cricket match, reduced to fit and appear inside the TV console. I doubt that there would have been a cricket match broadcast in London over TV in 1939, but there may have been. If so, Scotland Yard would have had one of the very first TV sets in England.

Here are some favorite lines in this film. For more humorous dialog, see the Quotes section under this IMDb Web page on the movie.

Raffles, "Tell me, Barraclough, why have you never been married? Surely there must have been some woman in your life." Barraclough, "There was. Two of them, to be exact. Twenty-three years ago." Raffles, "And neither of them became Mrs. Barraclough?" Barraclough, "No sir. Perhaps that was because I knew them both at the same time, sir. It didn't seem to work out."

Raffles, "Barraclough, did I remember to tell you she's the most wonderful girl in all the world?" Barraclough, "I had hoped, sir, that you were going to spare me that. Good night."

MacKenzie, "It's not the first time I've sent a thief to catch a thief."

Lord Melrose, "My dear, you know I don't like music." Lady Melrose, "And I don't like cricket. But I don't take a nap in the middle of the playing field."

Light-hearted crime drama I love the actors it was done well for a 1939 I love David Niven and the cast of characters all played their parts well the story was good I just wish they made more of these. I happen to hit this on a whim it was free on my Prime and I watched it and I'm so glad I did. I recommend that you try it too if you're into those kind of thin man type movies only he's the criminal. The story is so much better than today's stories there's no language which is my kind of movie there's no rolling around in the hay which is my kind of movie and everybody is courteous and kind to one another even the police.

RAFFLES is something of a so-so screen adaptation of the famous literary character, a notorious safe cracker and jewel thief here envisaged as David Nivan's charming cad. This 1939 version is a virtual remake of the 1930 film with Ronald Colman, and it follows that film's plot quite strictly.

What I found about this movie is that I didn't connect with the material as much as I had hoped. The characters go through the motions rather than living off the screen and everything is dealt with in a matter-of-fact way. Niven can do little with his character other than show up and act typically charming, and the best performer is none other than Olivia De Havilland, who shines as the romantic lead. The rest is straightforward, and not particularly memorable.