User Reviews

Sticking a whole lot closer to the Rafael Sabatini novel than the MGM remake with Stewart Granger in the Fifties, the silent Scaramouche was an important milestone in the career of Ramon Novarro. It was also one of the bigger moneymakers of Metro Pictures before it combined the following year as part of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer colossus. Novarro's box office appeal was one of the bigger assets the newly created MGM acquired.

Novarro strikes the right notes of passion, romance, and swashbuckling derring-do as the young lawyer of questionable parentage who starts an odyssey of adventure when he runs afoul of nobleman Lewis Stone when he calls him out after Stone who is a master swordsman kills young Otto Matieson in a one sided contest.

With the authorities looking for him in the France of Louis XVI, Novarro takes refuge in a troupe of strolling players and plays the famous clown character Scaramouche. Before the film France falls to the Revolutionary Terror and Novarro discovers his true heritage and his true love.

Scaramouche firmly established Novarro as the number one rival of Latin Lover Rudolphe Valentino. In fact Novarro seemed to be able to handle a bigger variety of roles in silent films than Valentino. Of course we'll never know what Valentino might have done in the sound era.

Lewis Stone as the villainous nobleman who is the bane of Novarro's existence is a far cry from Judge Hardy of Carvel, the ever wise father of Mickey Rooney and Cecilia Parker later on. But Stone from the time he was on stage before the Spanish American War handled a variety of parts in stock companies and Broadway. Those were the days where you had these local theater groups to learn your trade and Stone learned it better than most. He and Lionel Barrymore were mainstays in just about every MGM production of note while they were with the studio.

Scaramouche is a deserved silent classic and don't miss it when TCM decides to run it.

Ramon Novarro stars as André-Louis Moreau. Lewis Stone is Moreau's enemy, the Marquis de la Tour d'Azyr. And, Alice Terry is the woman they both love, Aline de Kercadiou. The story is set during the time of the French Revolution. The film begins with Mr. Stone as the Marquis de la Tour killing Mr. Novarro (Moreau's) best friend, which makes them great enemies. Enemies usually like the same woman; in this case, the coveted Ms. Terry (as Aline) creates the additional animosity.

This is a well-produced spectacle, from director Rex Ingram; the film obviously cost a fortune, and the money was well spent, creating a beautiful looking film. Mr. Ingram does a great job of pacing the approximately two hours of film; it retains much of its pace today, relative to other 1920s epics. Ingram's cinematographer John F. Seitz and star Ramon Novarro are indispensable. Mr. Seitz' photography is great, from the windmilly opening until the final conflicts. Some of the spectacular scenes are still terrific; but, some do look like they were staged to fit the movie screen, where everyone gathers for "Action!"

Mr. Novarro's lead performance is excellent; though, it might have been wise to let him use more of the ahead-of-their-time skills that are clearly evident. But, what's left is fine - best are the "looks" from the performers, which are not overacted (mostly). Lewis, Terry, and most everyone performs well. Novarro must join an acting troupe, by the way, while on-the-run - he becomes "Monsieur X" and play acts clown "Scaramouche", giving the film its title. Watch for the relationship between Novarro and a woman from the troupe, and the reason he finally rejects her (it parallels the major love triangle). Also, watch for two of the characters to startlingly look exactly like/alike the "shocking" second revelation at the end of the film.

******** Scaramouche (9/15/23) Rex Ingram ~ Ramon Novarro, Lewis Stone, Alice Terry, Lloyd Ingraham

Hats off to Rex Ingram. Scaramouche, like his other gorgeously mounted adventure sagas The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, The Prisoner of Zenda, or Ben-Hur (which he co-directed) illustrate clearly how the art of cinema took a body blow with the coming of sound, recovery from which took several years. The kinds of stunning compositions and environmental detail that were possible before the soundtrack era had to be jettisoned just for the sake of miking, so we lost much of this intensive artistry. Visually this film is every bit as impressive as Selznick's A Tale of Two Cities, or Korda's The Scarlet Pimpernel, both made well into the sound era over a decade later. Ingram was a visionary, right up there with Griffith, Stroheim and early DeMille. This film is beautiful right down to the title cards.

In this tale of the French Revolution we are treated to large doses of "The Masses," as in the later Selznick Tale of Two Cities. In fact, these masses are so vividly presented that one suspects that Selznick borrowed some of his imagery from Ingram. Like The Scarlet Pimpernel, Scaramouche is a participant in the events of the era. But whereas the Pimpernel used ingenious disguises and impersonations to save selected aristocrats from the guillotine, Scaramouche uses his position as popular comedic stage actor and skilled swordsman to rouse the masses to revolutionary action and successfully duel to the death with reactionary members of the National Assembly. Ramon Novarro, who plays the title character, was second only to Valentino as a heartthrob of the silent era but his countenance and manner were gentler. Lewis Stone, best known for his stern but benign elder patriarch roles in talkies, was once the dashing, chiselled-featured leading man on display here. Alice Terry as the love interest reminds us of how cinematic standards of beauty have changed. Her costuming and coiffure notwithstanding, there is a pre-20th-century quality to her, as if she stepped out of a painting or daguerrotype.

The 1923 "Scaramouche" has all the elements of an epic film saga -- intricate and plausible sets and costumes, clearly drawn characters, ever more intense pacing -- but it just failed to catch fire for me. Maybe it's the way it makes no pretense of being anything but a big bundle of melodramatic clichés wrapped in a too-transparent plot. Too bad; it sure had potential. If you can see the Turner Classic Movie version, with the new score by Jeff Silverman, do so. It's how film scores should be created for silent pictures like these, absolutely in sync with the action but not slavishly commenting on every little detail. Usually it's a backhanded compliment to say that one finds one is losing oneself in the movie and not paying any attention to the score, but in this case, believe me, it's the mark of a resounding success.

Fleeing from the wrath of the vengeful Nobility, a young Frenchman joins a troupe of actors. Winning fame as the clown SCARAMOUCHE, the stalwart fellow finds himself drawn into the events surrounding the start of the Revolution.

Following his big movie hit of the previous year - 1922's THE PRISONER OF ZENDA - director Rex Ingram discovered that cinematic lightning could indeed strike twice with this very fine adaptation of Rafael Sabatini's swashbuckling novel, "Scaramouche." Metro gave the production a high gloss, with excellent atmospherics, richly detailed exteriors & rousing mob scenes. It is always refreshing, in any epic film, to see every penny the studio invested represented on the screen.

Ingram reunited his principal cast from ZENDA - Ramon Novarro, Lewis Stone & Alice Terry - as stars for SCARAMOUCHE. Novarro, taking the hero role this time, proved he was no flash in the pan. Equally adept as sensitive lover or dueling revolutionary, with this performance Novarro was catapulted to Hollywood's upper ranks. Stone gives a finely nuanced performance as the villain of the story, slowly revealing layers to the man's personality not readily apparent at first. Miss Terry, who was Ingram's wife, is lovely, but the plot gives her little to do except look distressed or frightened.

In the supporting cast, special note should be given to George Siegmann, striking in the historical role of Danton. Edward Connelly, as the King's Minister, makes a marvelous grotesque.

It is interesting to note that Italian-born British author Rafael Sabatini (1875-1950) had been a novelist for many years before striking gold with "Scaramouche." Its popularity with the public, to say nothing of this acclaimed movie adaptation, pushed it permanently onto that small shelf of fiction (and films) - "A Tale of Two Cities," "The Scarlet Pimpernel" & ORPHANS OF THE STORM - forever associated with the French Revolution. Sabatini also wrote the swashbuckler adventure novels "The Sea Hawk" & "Captain Blood."

My TCM print has excellent picture quality, but the score is not up to scratch; it mainly fails to bring out the action of the film or direct the viewers reaction to what is on the screen; occasionally it succeeds, but overall is not very inspiring-- which describes the whole film, really. They may be historically accurate, but the costumes are dull,Alice Terry is no great beauty and Novarro, in his first major role, looks stodgy and not yet in possession of the looks which later led him to be described as "more beautiful than any man has the right to be!" Lewis Stone plays an arrogant but truly noble aristo who finally sacrifices himself for the benefit of those he loves. The mob scenes, where aristocrats are assaulted by the furious revolutionaries give a real sense of how frightening the experience must have been, but, as usual, no mention is made of the fact that, under "The Terror" , more common folks were guillotined than nobles. The film picks up pace in the second half, but I suspect that those familiar with the Sabatini novel will enjoy it more.

In the late 1700s France, Andre-Louis Moreau (Ramon Novarro) becomes a rebel against aristocracy after his friend is killed by the evil de la Tour d'Azy (Lewis Stone). Unfortunately the woman he loves Aline (Alice Terry) is part of the aristocracy.

Elaborate, well-directed with a cast of (seemingly) thousands this is a superb drama--it's just now getting its due on a stunning brand-new print showing on TCM. Alice Terry is just gorgeous as Aline--she's breath-takingly beautiful (that comes as no surprise--director Rex Ingram was her husband) and also one heck of an actress; Lewis Stone is convincingly slimy and cruel as the villain; best of all is Novarro. Easily one of the best-looking men ever it's easy to see why he was the top box office draw of his day. Looks aside, his acting was superb--he doesn't over emote (like some silent screen actors did) and was believable every step of the way. Sadly his career was destroyed because he was gay and homophobia was riding high at MGM. This man's acting and movies deserve some overdue recognition.

The movie moves at a brisk pace, there's never a dull moment and has a very moving finale (although I had guessed the two twists at the end). A definite must-see!

I'm a huge fan of the 1952 remake of Scaramouche, but when I bought the digital version of that film for some reason I got this original silent film as well. It was interesting to see some of the different things that played into the film I love, because there are a number of similar story elements. This one has quite an epic adventure as it takes us on a journey through a great deal of the French Revolution, and ties our main character into that bit of history. The hero's journey is easy to get invested in, because he is faced with a great deal of injustice. I did have some difficulty following the way the politics worked in the film, because they seemed to gloss over some key details, and it never felt like there were any rules or anyone enforcing them, but perhaps a history lesson would clear things up better for me.

Where this movie falls short of the magic that they found in 1952 is in the comedy and action. This film is almost entirely serious, and it becomes difficult to see how Moreau is able to disguise himself among the acting troupe. He constantly reveals himself and makes himself known, so the whole idea of joining them feels pointless. Also, while it seems weird saying this about a performance in a silent film, I felt Ramon Novarro's performance was a little flat in the lead role. Then there's the magic of the sword fights that this movie failed to capture. Perhaps it's the limitation of the time, but there's nothing all that exciting in these fights, while 1952 Scaramouche is a swashbuckling adventure through-and-through. However, there's an exciting twist in this story that actually managed to surprise me, and made it well worth watching. I'll still always lean towards the remake, but this is a decent silent film for those who like them.

This 1923 adaptation of a mid-1921 novel is one of the most faithful-to-the-original screenplays I have ever seen. Granted, large blocks of the book are omitted or greatly condensed, but who wants a 20-hour movie? The basic story line is retained and well developed.

The cinematography is superb, and the print we saw on cable was sharp and clear. It shows there is no excuse for the foggy, low-contrast prints we see in so many of the early thirties films. The sets, costumes, performances, and overall production are outstanding for any era. The silent film has been provided with a fine score, and even with its limitations is infinitely superior to the 1952 so-called "remake," which is virtually no relation to the book.

The two-hour-plus production moves along briskly (with perhaps a few too many minutes of the final mob scenes) and is exciting. Suspense is maintained very well, though my wife anticipated the ending. It was hard to keep my previous knowledge of the plot to myself.

I loved this production and give it an enthusiastic and unqualified 10.

(1923) Scaramouche ADVENTURE/ DRAMA

Adapted from the novel by Rafael Sabatini produced and directed by Rex Ingram with the story that takes place during the 1700's, when a best friend gets killed by a wealthy hierarchy seeking revenge or retribution to the person or the peoples' involved! Twists and turns galore which the only difference between this version and the more action wise 1952 version of the same name starring the physical Stewart Granger are the direction both films have made which are different. In this 1923 version, it delves to a more drama than action involving the casting of hundreds and hundreds whereas in the 1952 version the story centers between the duel between it's protagonist and the it's antagonist! Both are somewhat well made except that at times the story sometimes drags in this version that without the ending that it had, this movie would probably be an overall a bad experience.

Those who are familiar with the well-known 1952 remake of "Scaramouche" might find it difficult to recognize it in this 1923 silent version. The story in this earlier and seldom-seen version is quite different in many respects. Many of the plot points are different, the names of some of the principal characters are not the same and some of the principal characters in this earlier version do not even appear in the remake. The earlier version is also quite different in tone, being rather more in the nature of Historical-Melodrama or Historical-Fiction than the later version, which is much more of a mere swashbuckler. However, the fact is that this earlier version is actually much more faithful to the original book than the remake.

Don't be put off by the fact that this is a silent film produced 100 years ago, because it's production values are excellent. Clearly no available expense was spared to make this production as lavish and authentic to the period (France during the French Revolution), as possible. The director, Rex Ingram, was about as good as one could find at the time.

The cast also features some first rate performers, including perennial MGM favorite Lewis Stone, who was probably with the studio longer than any other actor, so long that he appeared in the 1952 remake. The title role is played by Ramon Navarro, who was a major star in the 1920s. Like Rudolph Valentino, Navarro was a major leading man in the films of the 1920s, and had the title role in the silent version of "Ben Hur". However, unlike Valentino, who died young, Navarro continued to work for many years, though his career as a leading man waned after talkies came in. Navarro's problem in talkies was that he happened to be Mexican, and spoke with an accent.

All in all, "Scaramouche" comes off as a lavish and well produced melodrama set against the background of the French Revolution. The plot points and tone are so different that it should be rated alongside, rather than above or below, the better-known swashbuckling remake. This film is very well worth a look, especially to the many fans of the 1952 version.

This is a well known film to most silent film buffs. Rex Ingram films his scenes like a painter. Ingram uses his camera like a paint brush. Indeed some of the scenes look like paintings come to life. This film is based on the novel by Rafael Sabatini and stars Ramon Novarro, one of Ingram's favorite actors. It costars Ingram's wife Alice Terry. This film boasts a cast of many well-known silent film supporting actors. An historical subject, Ingram gives great care to accuracy of costumes & history. The score for the film is adequate but tends to drone a bit. Surprisingly Ingrams camera can still be quite static which reminds one of DW Griffith's "Orphans of the Storm"(1921). Both 'Orphans' and 'Scaramouche' take place at the same tiime so a similarity is logical. The picture was made at Metro Studios just prior to the famous merger with Goldwyn & Mayer. Luckily this film survives today to be enjoyed. Rex Ingram, Metro Pictures.

Actor Ramon Novarro was coming off his biggest role yet in his young acting career as a villain in 1922's 'The Prisoner of Zelda,' when friend and director Rex Ingram offered him the lead as the hero in February 1923's "Scaramouche." The French Revolution swashbuckler proved to be Novarro's breakout role, catapulting him to become one of Hollywood's most popular screen performers in the early 1920's.

"Scaramouche," based on the 1921 Rafael Sabatini best seller, was a massive undertaking for its production studio, Metro Pictures. Ingram, also the producer, spent several months assisting in adapting the unwieldy novel's plot into a cohesive two-hour movie. He also oversaw elaborate sets duplicating late 18th-century Paris and hiring 1,500 extras, expenses that caused delays and over budgeted costs .

Metro's marketing publicity department saved the day. Knowing the box office appeal of rival sex-symbol actor Rudolph Valentino, the studio recognized that in its very own Mexican actor Novarro, it had an equally handsome male counterpart. Casting him as the hero in "Scaramouche," Metro benefited from his screen charisma. Ingram's multiple close-ups on his actors, especially with Novarro, highlighted Hollywood's new Latin lover's distinctive facial lines, guaranteed to send female fans swooning. The sword fights adapted from the novel, highlighted by Novarro's one with his arch nemesis, Marquis de la Tour d'Azyr (Lewis Stone), has been cited as one of cinema's first realistically-performed fencing duels. The lush sets, especially in the second half with teeming crowds hungry for revolution, created a movie rivaling the year's best epics.

"Scaramouche," with a prodigious roadshow, eventually recouped it's enormous outlays. The movie was 1923's fourth highest box office hit in the United States, and it broke ticket sale records in Paris and London. The lavish film was benefited by having one of Hollywood's sexiest male actors in Novarro driving scores of women to the movie theaters to view his eye-catching close-ups.

Had I never read the original novel "Scaramouche" by Rafael Sabatini and had I never seen the amazing Stewart Granger film of the 1950s, then I probably would have loved this silent movie. However, the book was so good and the Granger film so perfect that I found myself forever comparing this silent epic to the others and it usually came up short. In a way, that's sad, because it IS a very good film--especially compared to other films of the day.

The basic plot is set in the days just following the French Revolution of 1789. For a few short years, the country had still not slipped into radicalism and the country was ruled by a coalition of the old elite and young upstarts. Eventually, of course, most of the elite would be executed or run off to exile, but this film is set during the last gasps of the nobles--who STILL exercised some of their old clout.

Andre (Ramon Novarro) is an orphan who hobnobs with the upper crust but is definitely not one of them. When his best friend is murdered by an evil nobleman (Lewis Stone), he vows revenge and soon becomes a very outspoken critic of the rich. However, because of his outspokenness, he is marked for death and so he hides with a traveling theater company. He becomes very successful for the plays he writes as well as his rendition of the classic "Scaramouche" character. During this time, he also practices with the sword in the hopes of one day killing Stone. Eventually, his fame on stage increases so much that he is invited to serve in the Parlement. Plus, they want him because his swordsmanship is so good they figure he'll be able to protect himself--as the nobles are always dueling with their opponents killing them (a great way to deplete the non-elite class in Parlement).

All this leads to the expected ultimate showdown with Stone, though it ends differently than the Granger film and more like the original novel. In some ways, this isn't bad, but what is missing is the great sword fight between Novarro and Stone--it ends almost as soon as it begins! In the Granger version, the fight is the longest and best sword fight in film history and something you can't miss.

Apart from the fight that just fizzled, the film does have excellent sets, cinematography and musical score (something many silents do NOT have when shown today). It's good,...but I just can't help but prefer the sumptuous and more entertaining remake. This is one of the few cases when I do prefer a remake--so it just goes to show you how wonderful Stewart Granger's version is. If you only want to see one version of the film, see that one.

I can't help but feel that the world of cinema really lost something when the medium moved from silent films to talkies. There's a simple elegance in creating a picture solely with consideration of the visual element, and making it as rich as possible; even the most natural and nuanced of acting feels very different before and after that paradigm shift. The most elaborate sets and costume design of the earliest years of the industry seem more extravagant; the employment of many extras feels more special, as does any tinge of humor and any bursts of thrilling action. And so it unquestionably is here, with every actor before the camera performing with emphatic deliberation, and it is an utter joy to watch Ramon Novarro, Alice Terry, Lloyd Ingraham, Edith Allen, James Marcus, Willard Lee Hall, Lewis Stone, and others command scenes with such power. The cast nevertheless is nearly upstaged by the striking, truly magnificent production design and art direction that transform California landscapes into extraordinary, breath-taking villages, city squares, and more, to say nothing of of opulent, elaborate interiors. Every outfit and all the hair and makeup work are a real treat for the eyes; all the stunts, effects, and action sequences are earnestly exciting, and coordinated with superb finesse. I can understand how old features don't appeal to all comers, and I would have said the same of myself at one time. Even so, I watch 'Scaramouche' and I see an outstanding classic that continues to entertain even 100 years later, and which in every way that matters stands just as tall in 2023 as it did in 1923.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it's rather easy with silent movies to pause or resume suspension of disbelief at will. The division of the narrative into discrete scenes (aided by intertitles), and the relatively uncomplicated construction behind the scenes, often lend to a heightened sense of artificiality. The deception we accept as part of the social contract, that all we see before us is make-believe, is one that we can discard to more wholly admire the tremendous craftsmanship that went into the proceedings, and again take in hand to lose ourselves in the splendor of the story being told. Or - why not both at once? For that unique duality in no way diminishes the fabulous hard work that goes into these productions, nor the quality of the end result. From top to bottom 'Scaramouche' is shaped with fantastic skill, including not least John Seitz's vibrant cinematography, and Grant Whytock's keen editing. Rex Ingram, accomplished director that he was, proves the value of his reputation with masterful orchestration of every shot and scene: capturing every detail that the crew's labor assembled, and all the subtlety that that the players (and extras) exhibit in their terrific, absorbing performances. Whether adorned with illustrations or not (we get both, here), there's a lovely artistry even in the formulation of intertitles, or perhaps one might say, a lost art. And at the same time, the plot to greet us within is filled with a treasure trove of outright gifts for the adoring audience: class warfare, revolution, vengeance, anger, love, desperation, fear, purpose, momentum, tension, thrills, triumph, and more. Whatever it is you're looking for, this has got it, and more.

It is a feature that's as genuinely captivating and truly as well made as anything that has followed in all the subsequent years, if perhaps only to a slightly different set of standards. The writing is balanced and well-rounded in introducing a panoply of figures and weaving in so many different moods and ideas. As the saga builds it is most sincerely just as exhilarating as any comparable title one might name. To that point, one can recognize distinct similarities between this and adventure flicks to come, from 'The adventures of Robin Hood,' to more modern war films and action-thrillers, and in a way even extending to mega-millions blockbusters of the past several years. There's an immense grandeur to 'Scaramouche,' and a great intelligence, that still never loses sight of the need to let its audience have fun at the same time that they are awe-struck or even inspired. The picture dexterously dances twixt multiple converging threads, and aims to do so very much - and with the undeniable expertise of Ingram, his cast, his crew, and everyone else involved, it never misses a beat. I quite expected this to be enjoyable; I love movies of all kinds, and the silent era has a dear place in my heart. Still I'm impressed with just what Ingram, as both producer and director, was able to put together. I can only imagine that this was an enormous, challenging affair, because it certainly looks like it, but the efforts of all paid off handsomely. It's so wonderfully strong in terms of both storytelling and film-making, and the feelings and investment that it invites in the viewer, that I dare say this is a classic that could find favor even with those who tend to have difficulty engaging with older titles.

Suffice to say that I'm so very pleased with how excellent 'Scaramouche,' and frankly I can only give it my very highest, most enthusiastic recommendation. Though most do, not every piece from the earliest days of the medium hold up well. This one does, and is arguably more distinguished yet for soaring so loftily despite its technical limitations. One hundred years old, but it may as well be but a day: if you have the opportunity to watch this 1923 masterpiece, it is well worth anyone's time.