Rathbone is brilliant in all his roles: Holmes, good guy, bad guy, Errol Flynn's antagonist, and a crime victim here (A 1,000 pounds sterling in 1933 would be like 150,000+ in 2023! Also, it's interesting how none of these rich Brits offer to reimburse De Levis, in order to drop the "embarrassing" matter). This 90-year-old flick is great! Thanks for posting. Take a look.
This was arguably Rathbone's breakout screen role, and it's a memorable one. It was also one of the first films to deal with antisemitism - 15 years before Hollywood dared to touch the subject. Both the main characters get sensitive treatment - de Leavis is righteous but arrogant and defensive, Dancy is thieving, bigoted and reckless but still inspires some pity. An emotionally compelling movie.
Actually, 2 of his first films were the silent films The Masked Bride and The School for Scandal in 1923 followed by a number of other films before this one. He was a very busy actor in the 30s.
Wow, Alan Napier couldn’t have been more than 30 years old in this film if he was born in 1903! He made a whole 40+ year career out of playing white-haired gentlemen, generals and doctors etc, and Alfred on the ‘60s TV show Batman.
Basil Rathbone was a major star at home well before he came across the pond with films like this. The British film scene was just as good as the American by the latter 30's, then slowed by the war and came into it's own worldwide afterwards.
Yes, a thoughtful film. Lots of rich upper class empty headed characters who regarded Rathbone as "not one of us." Quite why Rathbone wanted to mix with them is beyond me, since the only reason they treated him with a veneer of civility was his wealth. I have NEVER understood the origins of anti-semitism [and why it persists and flourishes to the present day 2022]. :
There are numerous, precise and very clear reasons for anti-Semitism (mind I didn't say they were right). But nobody knows them, so people are left wondering, as if it was a non-sense. Same thing can be said about almost everything, such as the wars (Ukraine presently). By the way, Rathbone character (it's not Rathbone himself) presumably wanted to mix with other wealthy people because he wants to show himself, because he wants to assert that he can do it, because he needs their company for social or business reasons, because he enjoys living the same sort of life than they have, because of an overinflated vanity.......
Yes, an interesting film to be sure, and Rathbone, as always, brings a great performance (bordering on slightly comical at times). What I like about the film is that they don't exactly portray de Levis in a favourable light. He is every bit as petty and insufferable as the company he CHOOSES to keep. He's not a likeable person and is as two dimensional as any other character in the film when it comes to what he cares about; money and social stature. De Levis has a massive chip on his shoulder, probably due to the abuse he has suffered his whole life growing up as a Jew. It is almost as though he wants to prove a point about being able to rise to the highest levels of society and shove it in the face of those who would have been his tormentors growing up. The difference is that it is his Jewishness that is used to justify his character, rather than seeing him just as a human being with some undesirable personality traits, he is seen as a painful 'Jew', who is painful because of his Jewishness, and that is what anti-Semitism is; being unable to separate the human from the religion/culture. He is not just a man, he is a 'Jewish' man and this therefore bestows certain innate personality traits through the eyes of the anti-Semite. If he had been of Anglo heritage the whole scenario would have been seen through a very different lens. It still would have been ugly, but just portrayed in a different light.
An interesting analysis. I am not Jewish. My best friend ,when living in Canada, was Jewish and we had a deep brotherly affection for each other. We hardly ever discussed religious matters. When I left Canada we lost touch with each other, but I often look back at our friendship with warm feelings. He was my best man when I married a French Canadian lady- in a Roman Catholic church: all rather eclectic. Basil Rathbone was related to the Rathbone family of Liverpool, my home town.
@@brucejackson4219 No, I'm not Jewish either, but know Jewish people. Let's face it, unless you have been raised and/or indoctrinated into hating a particular group in society it is unfathomable to you how you could judge someone like that and hate them for it. As for Rathbone, I'm a huge fan. One of his younger fans (I'm in my 40s). I just love him and his work...and what a spunk LOL!
@@leishayoung4124 Thanks for this Leisha. Although not an addict to nor a fanatic of [English ? ] Holmes' stories, I started reading them when I was about 14 [ being many years before you were born] . The Rathbone renditions were my first introduction to Holmes' films and he remains my favourite actor of the character. I have some reservations as to the Nigel Bruce portrayals-but that's another story. I prefer each of the actors playing Watson in the Jeremy Brett series. I find many very thoughtful movies on TH-cam. I suppose my # 1 is M [Peter Lorre] But two other German films run this one very close , namely: 1 ICH KLAGE AN [1941] a very powerful film, full of angst. If you have not seen it, I suggest you have a box of Kleenex ready. The opening music is magnificent and was composed by the chap who wrote the music for the Lili Marlene song. An English sub-title version is available on archive .org 2 A movie [early 1940s ] about Robert Schumann- I can't remember the title: again, see archive.org for sub-titles in English. This is not a documentary. Schumann wrote my favourite piece of classical music [transcribed for piano by Liszt ]- namely WIDMUNG [Devotion/Dedication]. If you have difficulty tracking this film down, then let me know. You should have available any Kleenex you did not use [see # 1 above], since the ending of this second film is a 5* weepie. Take care of yourself. Bruce PS: I do not certify that this email is free of spelling & grammatical errors. No disrespect to you is intended. .PPS: just refreshed my memory. The Schumann film is TRAUMEREI...[Dreaming] 1943. good print with English sub-titles on website Lady of the Shroud
I don't know, I think he was something of a petty man with a big chip on his shoulder. We must also remember that he 'chose' his company, nobody forced him to associate with the upper echelons of society (and their bigotry). I don't think we're actually supposed to see De Levis in a terribly favourable light as a person, he would be quite insufferable to be around, especially if you were of lower class, he probably wouldn't want anything to do with you. The issue is that his chosen company seem to think it is his 'Jewishness' that makes him the way he is, rather than just seeing a flawed individual with a lot of hang-ups about, probably, the abuse he endured growing up Jewish. De Levis is a flawed character but it has nothing to do with his Jewishnes, it's just him, but in the eyes of the anti-Semite, it IS his Jewishness that makes him the way he is, and this is where bigotry begins and ends in ANY form; the idea that by virtue of birth this bestows certain innate traits that make them different from the bigot.
He was the victim at every turn in this story (he gets robbed, Dancy sues him, he gets suspended from his club while Dancy doesn't, the General doesn't keep his promise to him, etc) and he constantly gets treated as the villain. They blame him for Dancy's death. Does one single person apologize to him for shunning him when they find out he was right all along? No. Why? Because he's not one of them. To them he's just, as Dancy points out, a "damn Jew."
Had a mostly rural childhood, poor family, many siblings, no father. Social stigma left it's bitter sentiment even thru graduating maturity. After centuries of persecution of course a distinct personality evolved in the Jewish disposition.. But this is evidently just as true for zealots of any stripe. Zealots survive because they are zealots. After a literature heavy youth l moved to Houston TX and attended Bellaire High, or Hebrew High, all gentiles meet in the phonebooth. Zero to 60. 3 years later I had gained a premium education on jewry. I was born again in 1984, getting a valuable education on their antiquity. Complimented by events that followed since and currently. Now l know, or believe l competantly understand these chosen people. This story is both a human interest concern against the sin of theft. Also a testimony against the sin of prejudice. Well intertwined and supportive of the lessons imparted. A good film gets under your skin. I shall retain these presented conflicts of brotherhood and loyalty. I have a habit of profiling movies as valid examples of genuine human charicature. Always enjoy B.R. 🦂
The film was part of an increased trend depicting mistreatment of Jews in British films during the 1930s, tied to the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, but is unusual in its depiction of prejudice in Britain as most other films were set in a non-British, historical context... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalties_(1933_film)
Rathbone is brilliant in all his roles: Holmes, good guy, bad guy, Errol Flynn's antagonist, and a crime victim here (A 1,000 pounds sterling in 1933 would be like 150,000+ in 2023! Also, it's interesting how none of these rich Brits offer to reimburse De Levis, in order to drop the "embarrassing" matter). This 90-year-old flick is great! Thanks for posting. Take a look.
Thank you for this gem. I've been trying to find this film for twenty years. Brave and honest topic for 1933 and for our present time. Thank you.
Who else is watching this in 2024 😢
Me. Greetings from Argentina.
and another Canuck! ☺
TEXAS!
California 😊
I will watch anything with Basil Rathbone.
This was arguably Rathbone's breakout screen role, and it's a memorable one. It was also one of the first films to deal with antisemitism - 15 years before Hollywood dared to touch the subject. Both the main characters get sensitive treatment - de Leavis is righteous but arrogant and defensive, Dancy is thieving, bigoted and reckless but still inspires some pity. An emotionally compelling movie.
Actually, 2 of his first films were the silent films The Masked Bride and The School for Scandal in 1923 followed by a number of other films before this one. He was a very busy actor in the 30s.
Watching 9-20-2024. Glad to know there is a good movie I've missed. Love the oldies best. Thanks for posting.🎯
Wow, Alan Napier couldn’t have been more than 30 years old in this film if he was born in 1903! He made a whole 40+ year career out of playing white-haired gentlemen, generals and doctors etc, and Alfred on the ‘60s TV show Batman.
Bravo Rathbone!
Watching in September 2024
Me too and my comments have been deleted.....
Basil Rathbone was a major star at home well before he came across the pond with films like this. The British film scene was just as good as the American by the latter 30's, then slowed by the war and came into it's own worldwide afterwards.
Very profound ending commentary😮 on race and loyalty. No coincidence Hitler rose to power in 33.
Let's also give a hand to that great actor Miles Mander.
I love the lest line, loyalties
Under the pillow is probably the worst place to hide something. That’s where I put my late nite sandwich.
very interesting film
Been looking for Loyalties, the film. I listened to the radio play, available on TH-cam, which I would highly recommend!
Damned good argument for loyalty - happy those bound in fealties…
Basil rathbone would be 132 now
A vey stiff Rathbone. Maybe his part was written that way. Excellent film breaching a topic that prevails to this day. Thank you OMF
Alan Napier was only 30 years oldin this film. 😆
And looking exactly the same as he did in the 1960s, as Alfred on the Batman TV show. Amazing!
Very good movie
Alan Napier is about 9cm or even 4 inches taller than basil rathbone
Best Holmes by far
Yes, a thoughtful film. Lots of rich upper class empty headed characters who regarded Rathbone as "not one of us." Quite why Rathbone wanted to mix with them is beyond me, since the only reason they treated him with a veneer of civility was his wealth. I have NEVER understood the origins of anti-semitism [and why it persists and flourishes to the present day 2022].
:
There are numerous, precise and very clear reasons for anti-Semitism (mind I didn't say they were right). But nobody knows them, so people are left wondering, as if it was a non-sense. Same thing can be said about almost everything, such as the wars (Ukraine presently). By the way, Rathbone character (it's not Rathbone himself) presumably wanted to mix with other wealthy people because he wants to show himself, because he wants to assert that he can do it, because he needs their company for social or business reasons, because he enjoys living the same sort of life than they have, because of an overinflated vanity.......
Yes, an interesting film to be sure, and Rathbone, as always, brings a great performance (bordering on slightly comical at times).
What I like about the film is that they don't exactly portray de Levis in a favourable light. He is every bit as petty and insufferable as the company he CHOOSES to keep. He's not a likeable person and is as two dimensional as any other character in the film when it comes to what he cares about; money and social stature.
De Levis has a massive chip on his shoulder, probably due to the abuse he has suffered his whole life growing up as a Jew. It is almost as though he wants to prove a point about being able to rise to the highest levels of society and shove it in the face of those who would have been his tormentors growing up.
The difference is that it is his Jewishness that is used to justify his character, rather than seeing him just as a human being with some undesirable personality traits, he is seen as a painful 'Jew', who is painful because of his Jewishness, and that is what anti-Semitism is; being unable to separate the human from the religion/culture. He is not just a man, he is a 'Jewish' man and this therefore bestows certain innate personality traits through the eyes of the anti-Semite.
If he had been of Anglo heritage the whole scenario would have been seen through a very different lens. It still would have been ugly, but just portrayed in a different light.
An interesting analysis.
I am not Jewish. My best friend ,when living in Canada, was Jewish and we had a deep brotherly affection for each other. We hardly ever discussed religious matters. When I left Canada we lost touch with each other, but I often look back at our friendship with warm feelings. He was my best man when I married a French Canadian lady- in a Roman Catholic church: all rather eclectic.
Basil Rathbone was related to the Rathbone family of Liverpool, my home town.
@@brucejackson4219 No, I'm not Jewish either, but know Jewish people. Let's face it, unless you have been raised and/or indoctrinated into hating a particular group in society it is unfathomable to you how you could judge someone like that and hate them for it.
As for Rathbone, I'm a huge fan. One of his younger fans (I'm in my 40s). I just love him and his work...and what a spunk LOL!
@@leishayoung4124 Thanks for this Leisha.
Although not an addict to nor a fanatic of [English ? ] Holmes' stories, I started reading them when I was about 14 [ being many years before you were born] . The Rathbone renditions were my first introduction to Holmes' films and he remains my favourite actor of the character. I have some reservations as to the Nigel Bruce portrayals-but that's another story. I prefer each of the actors playing Watson in the Jeremy Brett series.
I find many very thoughtful movies on TH-cam. I suppose my # 1 is M [Peter Lorre] But two other German films run this one very close , namely:
1 ICH KLAGE AN [1941] a very powerful film, full of angst. If you have not seen it, I suggest you have a box of Kleenex ready. The opening music is magnificent and was composed by the chap who wrote the music for the Lili Marlene song.
An English sub-title version is available on archive .org
2 A movie [early 1940s ] about Robert Schumann- I can't remember the title: again, see archive.org for sub-titles in English. This is not a documentary. Schumann wrote my favourite piece of classical music [transcribed for piano by Liszt ]- namely WIDMUNG [Devotion/Dedication]. If you have difficulty tracking this film down, then let me know.
You should have available any Kleenex you did not use [see # 1 above], since the ending of this second film is a 5* weepie.
Take care of yourself.
Bruce
PS: I do not certify that this email is free of spelling & grammatical errors. No disrespect to you is intended.
.PPS: just refreshed my memory. The Schumann film is TRAUMEREI...[Dreaming] 1943. good print with English sub-titles
on website Lady of the Shroud
De levis was a decent man....
I don't know, I think he was something of a petty man with a big chip on his shoulder. We must also remember that he 'chose' his company, nobody forced him to associate with the upper echelons of society (and their bigotry).
I don't think we're actually supposed to see De Levis in a terribly favourable light as a person, he would be quite insufferable to be around, especially if you were of lower class, he probably wouldn't want anything to do with you.
The issue is that his chosen company seem to think it is his 'Jewishness' that makes him the way he is, rather than just seeing a flawed individual with a lot of hang-ups about, probably, the abuse he endured growing up Jewish.
De Levis is a flawed character but it has nothing to do with his Jewishnes, it's just him, but in the eyes of the anti-Semite, it IS his Jewishness that makes him the way he is, and this is where bigotry begins and ends in ANY form; the idea that by virtue of birth this bestows certain innate traits that make them different from the bigot.
He was the victim at every turn in this story (he gets robbed, Dancy sues him, he gets suspended from his club while Dancy doesn't, the General doesn't keep his promise to him, etc) and he constantly gets treated as the villain. They blame him for Dancy's death. Does one single person apologize to him for shunning him when they find out he was right all along? No. Why? Because he's not one of them. To them he's just, as Dancy points out, a "damn Jew."
Had a mostly rural childhood, poor family, many siblings, no father. Social stigma left it's bitter sentiment even thru graduating maturity. After centuries of persecution of course a distinct personality evolved in the Jewish disposition.. But this is evidently just as true for zealots of any stripe. Zealots survive because they are zealots. After a literature heavy youth l moved to Houston TX and attended Bellaire High, or Hebrew High, all gentiles meet in the phonebooth. Zero to 60. 3 years later I had gained a premium education on jewry. I was born again in 1984, getting a valuable education on their antiquity. Complimented by events that followed since and currently. Now l know, or believe l competantly understand these chosen people. This story is both a human interest concern against the sin of theft. Also a testimony against the sin of prejudice. Well intertwined and supportive of the lessons imparted. A good film gets under your skin. I shall retain these presented conflicts of brotherhood and loyalty. I have a habit of profiling movies as valid examples of genuine human charicature. Always enjoy B.R. 🦂
Me
Ah, a little 1933 propaganda, what is interesting to me is that my vote didn't stick.
1. save her keep
2. in the blood
3. as we are done by
4. beastly luck
5. semantics
The film was part of an increased trend depicting mistreatment of Jews in British films during the 1930s, tied to the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, but is unusual in its depiction of prejudice in Britain as most other films were set in a non-British, historical context... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalties_(1933_film)
Me 🎉