Romola (1924)

[entredeuxguerres]

Well, here's the famous (but misleading) painting depicting the burning of Savonarola & his two fellow Dominicans in the Piazza della Signoria which inspired the ridiculously high scaffold built for the picture. Doesn't seem possible that the bodies could have been more than roasted well-done had they really been hoisted so high above the flames.

[George O'Brien]

Tessa does not drown in the Eliot novel?

I seem to remember that they went to a great deal of trouble with that scene. Does anyone have a copy of Lillian's "The Movies, Mr. Griffith ...."? The Arno proved filthy, choppy and otherwise uncooperative, so the scene had to be restaged and filmed once they got back to America, in Long Island Sound.

On one of Lillian's silent film hosting gigs on television, she presented the scene in her post flick chat. I think she might have even said that she directed it. At any rate, the water was as flat as a bathtub and the scene mildly comical.

PS
Dug up my copy of Lillian's autobiography, and yes, Tessa's drowning scene was filmed in late October 1924 with Lil directing, Henry King being busy elsewhere. "An expert diver pulled her under", which is why the scene evokes laughs: Dorothy is struggling frantically and in an instant she is gone, yanked into the deep by the expert diver.

I was mistaken about the film opening Graumann's Egyptian theater, but Lillian is even more mistaken - and she had a ghost writer and a proofreader. "The film opened in New York on Dec.1, 1924," she writes, "and 5 days later at Sid Graumann's new Chinese Theater." The Chinese Theater theater didn't open until 1927, with the premiere of "King of Kings.

[entredeuxguerres]

As of last night, I can boast myself a member of the Romola (Grapevine ed.) Club; soft & murky print, so thank God I'd been warned what to expect. But I thought it far from dull, as most have described it, because almost every scene exhibited some gross & gratuitous distortion of Eliot's story that kept my amazed incredulity of the screenwriter's chutzpa constantly stimulated; such as Romola's father, humanist despiser of the clergy, being described as an admirer of Savonrola, or her husband Tito (Powell's character), a mere secretary to the ruling party, being elevated to Supreme Leader, & on & on.

The character assigned to Colman was another of the screenwriter's inventions out of whole cloth, but what a perfect Tito he'd have made--not the unscrupulous cad & rascal portrayed by Powell, but rather the tragic personality described in these lines:

So oft it chances in particular men
That, for some vicious mole of nature in them,
As in their birth,- wherein they are not guilty,
Since nature cannot choose his origin...
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect...
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

The corrupting consequences of that "one defect" was the essence of Eliot's tale, which would have required an actor of Colman's subtlety to bring to life. But then it's obvious that there never was any serious attempt to adapt the novel to the screen, merely a misleading misappropriation of the title & characters.

[WaverBoy]

I may have to see this just for William Powell's epic style. Wow.

[IA]

I've just finished watching Romola. If memory serves, Grapevine issued an improved DVD of the film in 2015. The visual quality veers between acceptable and good--not as bad as I'd feared. The score is an awkwardly joined patchwork but inoffensive.

I'd read a good deal about the film being a disappointment, hoped against hope it wasn't, and was still disappointed. A stellar set of cooks, yet the yeast refused to rise. I'm sure the original novel was a worthy book, but the crudely melodramatic script is nearly incompetent--it takes forever for any drama to arise and we're given little reason to care about what happens to Savonarola. Lilian Gish and Colman are given little to do and Dorothy has to settle for mugging during her comedy scenes (and even those doesn't excuse the film punishing her character so harshly!). Only William Powell makes an impression and he barely looks interested. I thought his wig looked historically accurate, but picturing it on his later characters would be hilarious.

Initially I blamed editor Duncan Mansfield for the film's slowness, but he also edited Tol'able David and all the King films between it and Romola, so I'm afraid King must share the brickbats. He seems more interested in showcasing authentic furnishings and settings than the actors. This is a prestige production that embodies everything dull about prestige productions. If movies were judged solely by art direction Romola would be a masterpiece. Throw in the residual star power, occasionally interesting compositions, and increase in drama at the climax, and the film is ultimately mediocre.

Post Script: A third person is to blame for Romola's pacing. In The Movies, Mr. Griffith, and Me Lillian Gish writes that "Henry King, the director, was called away after production was completed, so I was left with the final cutting of the film...Although Romola did well, I never thought the drama matched the splendor of its fifteenth-century backgrounds. Douglas Fairbanks maintained that it was the most beautiful picture ever made, but I found it too slow-paced."

[bobfells]

IA, you've summed up the impression that most viewers will come away with. I really wanted to like ROMOLA due to the director and that cast. And I really should read the Eliot novel to discover what inspired King and Gish to film it. But I've seen enough silents that offered beautiful art direction but were seen to a huge disadvantage in a muddy, fuzzy, or plain ol' lousy copy. WAXWORKS comes to mind. Having caught up with a few such films when they could be seen in relatively pristine 35mm prints my opinion of the film substantially changed. It wasn't a 180 degree change but I finally understood what all the excitement was about. I hope someday to have that experience with ROMOLA.

Bob