E.W. Hornung’s A.J. Raffles was the favored antihero of late Victorian adventure. He is a gentleman crook that robs from the rich and gives to the poor. No too unusual? Well, you see, the “poor” in this case are Raffles himself and his hapless best friend, nicknamed Bunny.

In the 1899 novel, Raffles and Bunny rob their way through fashionable English society for money and thrills.

Raffles is the Sherlock Holmes of crime while Bunny is his bewildered Watson, chronicling his eccentric friend’s singular adventures. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that author E.W. Hornung was married to Arthur Conan Doyle’s sister. Hornung was not as polished an author as his famous brother-in-law but at least he knew how to twist a formula to create something new.

What’s really different about Raffles that at the end of the novel the hero/villain evades capture and lives to rob again.

Obviously, such behavior was daring in a novel and it would be utterly unacceptable on the screen. Changes had to be made.

Raffles had come to the screen in 1905, played by Broncho Billy Anderson. For the first feature length film in 1917, John Barrymore took over the role. The tale would be filmed three more times by 1939.

John Barrymore’s most recognizable work came in the late twenties and early thirties, by which time his stunningly handsome features were helped along with layers of cheesecloth and his fencer’s figure was ruthlessly cinched into submission. After that, the descent into self-parody.

Raffles is one of his earliest extant performances and it’s difficult to imagine an actor better suited for the role. Barrymore always was at his best playing rascals and rogues and at only 35 he had the youthful vigor to make Raffles one of his best.

His Raffles is much more of a Robin Hood figure. His ill-gotten gains are stolen from the corrupt and foolish and the proceeds donated to charity or used to bail out friends. Using his cover as a famous cricket player, he is about to lift a particularly delectable necklace when everything goes haywire.

A detective is on the trail of the “Amateur Cracksman”, a shady lady from Raffles’ past is blackmailing him and Raffles finds himself in love with his best friend’s girl. Oh and another crook is in the neighborhood trying to get that necklace.

What’s an amateur crook to do?

Why go through with the burglary, of course!

The addiction to adrenaline was one of the trademarks of the Raffles of the novels. This aspect of his character has been toned down considerably for the screen. It’s just unseemly! Robbery for the thrill of it? And for monetary gain? That would never do.

Barrymore plays Raffles as a mischievous vigilante, punishing crooks that the law cannot. It may have satisfied the censors but it makes Raffles more of a cliché and much less interesting as a result.

Barrymore does what he can with the material. Raffles may be watered down but he is still an anarchic figure turning social norms on their head and having a splendid time at it. Barrymore plays his role more broadly than usual (which is pretty broad), letting the audience in on the joke.

The supporting cast is unremarkable with the exception of Frank Morgan. You probably know him as Oz, great and powerful. As Raffles’ hapless school chum, Bunny, Morgan is a charming weakling: waffling, nervous but ultimately good hearted. He holds his own against the famed Barrymore hamminess. Unfortunately, the character’s role is considerably reduced from the novels.

The film itself is set-bound and the direction is humdrum. These disadvantages may have been outweighed by the presence Barrymore and Morgan but the film has one more unfortunate problem: the intertitles.

Silent movies live and die by the quality of writing in their intertitles. Unfortunately, the titles in Raffles are long, redundant, and occur entirely too frequently. No subtly is left unexplained. All conversations deserve a recap. Anything worth saying once is worth saying twice or three times more. Ten seconds without a title card? Heavens, they must be slipping.

Help!

In the end, what we have is a frustrating picture. Two very good actors doing battle against a sea of extravagant intertitles and wooden co-stars. Raffles is worth a look but it represents a wasted opportunity.

But Raffles was too good a character to waste and eight years later, Hollywood was ready to try again.

Motion pictures had changed considerably between 1917 and 1925 but you wouldn’t know it watching the later version of Raffles.

The camera remains stubbornly nailed to the same spot. The sets and lighting are unimaginative and the acting is strictly of the “woe is me” category. Director King Baggot reveals his roots in the Nickleodeon era of film making.

Raffles himself is even further sanitized. He is less of a burglar and more of an extremely enthusiastic supporter of charities. He steals valuables and then returns them anonymously, donating the reward to the soldier’s fund. His "victims" are so happy to get their trinkets back that they don't even bother to press charges.

Haven't you heard the latest fad? Robbery! Good fun for all, really. And it's all for charity. (Which leads to all sorts of questions: Are these donations tax deductible? If so, for whom? But I digress.)

The scenario takes more liberties with the source material by making Bunny into a libertine and a police informant who eventually betrays his generous friend. This is on par having Dr. Watson turn out to be the Hound of the Baskervilles.

Bunny, played by Freeman Wood, is a wastrel with a gambling addiction who sponges off of the generous Raffles in order to pay off his gaming debts.

Wood’s histrionic-riddled performance is pretty bad but the infamous Hedda Hopper wins the prize for worst in show.

She plays Mrs. Vidal, the dangerously jealous woman from Raffles’ past. Hopper’s acting is straight out of an Edison melodrama: mugging to the camera, eye-rolling, dramatic gestures…

It’s probably a good thing for all concerned that she changed careers.

House Peters takes over the role of Raffles and while not bad, he is given little to do except smile. And even he can't rescue the film from the painfully contrived ending.

Miss Dupont as Gwendolyn also fails to impress. The rest of the cast is underwhelming.

Raffles is not a terrible movie, it’s just tedious and repetitive. Without the charisma of John Barrymore and Frank Morgan, all we are left with is a second-rate Robin Hood in a tuxedo. The overripe acting of Hedda Hopper offer some unintentional amusement but a little goes a very long way.

Raffles returned to the screen several times more, most notably played by David Niven and Ronald Coleman, but has been absent for the last few decades. But good antiheroes are hard to come by and here’s hoping that Mr. Raffles will be resurrected for a new century.

Back to film reviews

Copyright 2009-2010 Galloping Tintypes