Good film spoiled by a really stupid ending! Menjou is wonderful...

An instance where notes of both comedy and drama just don't mix

Paramount Studios - 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, USA

Vilma Bánky and Ronald Colman in The Magic Flame (1927)

Rod La Rocque in The Fighting Eagle (1927)

Adolphe Menjou in A Gentleman of Paris (1927)

Adolphe Menjou and Shirley O'Hara in A Gentleman of Paris (1927)

Adolphe Menjou

Shirley O&apos;Hara

Arlette Marchal

Benjamin Glazer

Roy Horniman

Herman J. Mankiewicz

A young Parisian noble promises to marry. Visited by fiancée and parents, he bids farewell to mistresses. After marriage and gambling scandal engineered by vengeful valet, the valet confesses to save his master, reuniting the newl...

Harry d&apos;Abbadie d&apos;Arrast

A Gentleman of Paris

An instance where notes of both comedy and drama just don&apos;t mix

It&apos;s a small thing, but it&apos;s noteworthy that unlike the great preponderance of the silent era, here the filmmakers quite declined any intertitles that serve to simply establish characters, settings, or the immediate scenario. I may be mistaken, but I counted exactly two intertitles that weren&apos;t relating dialogue. This seems important because even for someone like me who loves silent films and has watched many, the picture seems weak when it comes to initially identifying characters, or particularly giving order to the storytelling until a fair bit of the abbreviated runtime has already elapsed. On an unrelated note: owing to societal norms and censorial standards, we get such revisions as men and women &quot;sleeping together&quot; and having affairs but being depicted in separate beds. It&apos;s surprising that at the same time, &apos;A gentleman of Paris&apos; was allowed to have intertitles that so heavily speak of affairs outside of marriage, or a story that allowed the philanderer to be written as our sympathetic protagonist, let alone to have the ending that he does. Maybe all this just means that filmmaker Harry d&apos;Abbadie d&apos;Arrast and/or the writing team were ahead of their time, trying something different, got lucky, or erred, or maybe the censors were lax on this for some reason. I&apos;m not entirely sure what the answer is.

Either way, the most readily striking facets of this picture don&apos;t even speak directly to its quality. To that point, what next catches one&apos;s attention the most is the lovely costume design, hair, and makeup, especially for the women, and the splendid sets the crew built for the production. Would that any women in the cast were given meaningful roles and that this wasn&apos;t a vehicle chiefly for Adolphe Menjou and Nicholas Soussanin as the Marquis and Joseph, respectively; among the supporting cast, William B. Davidson and Lawrence Grant are far more prominent than any women involved. For what it&apos;s worth, I think everyone gives a fine performance of personality and nuance, perfect for the tale on hand of a serial womanizer, his trusted valet who enables and protects him from accountability, and the stumbling block that upsets that relationship. However, given how the Marquis is centered and written - as if we&apos;re supposed to feel sorry for him, not laugh at him - I don&apos;t think the intended notes of comedy ever had a chance of hitting like they ideally should; if this were built purely as a straight drama then the screenplay would have also needed distinct retooling to succeed. It&apos;s not that the tale at large isn&apos;t worthy, or that this isn&apos;t enjoyable in some measure, but &apos;A gentleman of Paris&apos; is all over the place in terms of its tone, and in how its characters are written, and even at its best it&apos;s no more than passively amusing. The writers really needed to have discretely picked either comedy or drama, not a combination thereof, and fully committed thereto.

Some of the best movies ever made hail from the silent era, and even setting aside the exemplars, most silent movies at least deserve recognition, remembrance, and preservation as treasures of our culture. I won&apos;t go so far as to say that the latter is the only basis on which this 1927 title is deserving, but I sat to watch with no foreknowledge but fair expectations, and I&apos;d be lying if I said I weren&apos;t a little disappointed. I don&apos;t think it&apos;s bad, but it&apos;s uneven and imbalanced, and the material as it presents is ill-suited for both comedy and drama, let alone a mix of the two; I&apos;d quite like to see another treatment of Roy Horniman&apos;s novel and play that picked one side of the fence and stayed there - and that did the same for its characters - for that&apos;s what this needed most. I won&apos;t say &quot;don&apos;t bother,&quot; but &apos;A gentleman of Paris&apos; is far from a must-see, recommended only for those who are huge fans of the silent era, and suggested for a lazy day rather than a night set aside.

It's a small thing, but it's noteworthy that unlike the great preponderance of the silent era, here the filmmakers quite declined any intertitles that serve to simply establish characters, settings, or the immediate scenario. I may be mistaken, but I counted exactly two intertitles that weren't relating dialogue. This seems important because even for someone like me who loves silent films and has watched many, the picture seems weak when it comes to initially identifying characters, or particularly giving order to the storytelling until a fair bit of the abbreviated runtime has already elapsed. On an unrelated note: owing to societal norms and censorial standards, we get such revisions as men and women "sleeping together" and having affairs but being depicted in separate beds. It's surprising that at the same time, 'A gentleman of Paris' was allowed to have intertitles that so heavily speak of affairs outside of marriage, or a story that allowed the philanderer to be written as our sympathetic protagonist, let alone to have the ending that he does. Maybe all this just means that filmmaker Harry d'Abbadie d'Arrast and/or the writing team were ahead of their time, trying something different, got lucky, or erred, or maybe the censors were lax on this for some reason. I'm not entirely sure what the answer is.

Either way, the most readily striking facets of this picture don't even speak directly to its quality. To that point, what next catches one's attention the most is the lovely costume design, hair, and makeup, especially for the women, and the splendid sets the crew built for the production. Would that any women in the cast were given meaningful roles and that this wasn't a vehicle chiefly for Adolphe Menjou and Nicholas Soussanin as the Marquis and Joseph, respectively; among the supporting cast, William B. Davidson and Lawrence Grant are far more prominent than any women involved. For what it's worth, I think everyone gives a fine performance of personality and nuance, perfect for the tale on hand of a serial womanizer, his trusted valet who enables and protects him from accountability, and the stumbling block that upsets that relationship. However, given how the Marquis is centered and written - as if we're supposed to feel sorry for him, not laugh at him - I don't think the intended notes of comedy ever had a chance of hitting like they ideally should; if this were built purely as a straight drama then the screenplay would have also needed distinct retooling to succeed. It's not that the tale at large isn't worthy, or that this isn't enjoyable in some measure, but 'A gentleman of Paris' is all over the place in terms of its tone, and in how its characters are written, and even at its best it's no more than passively amusing. The writers really needed to have discretely picked either comedy or drama, not a combination thereof, and fully committed thereto.

Some of the best movies ever made hail from the silent era, and even setting aside the exemplars, most silent movies at least deserve recognition, remembrance, and preservation as treasures of our culture. I won't go so far as to say that the latter is the only basis on which this 1927 title is deserving, but I sat to watch with no foreknowledge but fair expectations, and I'd be lying if I said I weren't a little disappointed. I don't think it's bad, but it's uneven and imbalanced, and the material as it presents is ill-suited for both comedy and drama, let alone a mix of the two; I'd quite like to see another treatment of Roy Horniman's novel and play that picked one side of the fence and stayed there - and that did the same for its characters - for that's what this needed most. I won't say "don't bother," but 'A gentleman of Paris' is far from a must-see, recommended only for those who are huge fans of the silent era, and suggested for a lazy day rather than a night set aside.

A young Parisian noble promises to marry. Visited by fiancée and parents, he bids farewell to mistresses. After marriage and gambling scandal engineered by vengeful valet, the valet confesses to save his master, reuniting the newlyweds.

bappamtv

A Gentleman of Paris

🎭 Top Cast

🎬 Technical Specs

🎯 Categories

⭐ Featured Review

💡 Did You Know?

🎬 More Like This

📖 Synopsis