Scaramouche review

We watched the 1952 remake of Scaramouche - the one starring Stewart Granger. To fess up, I got it because of the six minute long sword duel between Scaramouche and Monsieur de Maynes which I've heard is the gold standard of swashbuckling cinematic duels. Well . . . hey, it is!

What I found in particular is that while academically aware that Hollywood cinema deeply influenced the Jackie Chan era of Chinese stuntmen and their often mind blowing antics, I haven't actually seen a lot of those movies. But with Scaramouche, I saw the kind of stuntwork that clearly presaged Chinese action movies of the 70s onwards. Not only the actors doing their own stunts, but crawling all over the scenery while swordfighting, swordfighting on narrow surfaces, swordfighting swinging from ropes, the tossing of everything in sight at each other, dropping heavy things from a great height to try to hit the other guy on the head . . . while lacking the kinetic oomph of a Yuen Woo-Ping directed fight, you can easily see all the elements that we'd see again in kung-fu movies. The visual language is clearly the same. So, great going, guys!

So, was there more than a swordfight? Yes! While Stewart Granger played Scaramouche's bemused insouciance to a T, I think that the show was stolen by Mel Ferrer was the villain, le Marquis de Maynes. Ferrer really caught the "it's great to be me" vibe that a viciously murderous wealthy and good looking French aristocrat should have. Obviously, de Maynes loved his life, especially when it involved killing someone, or bragging about killing someone. Even at the end, with a sword to his heart, the actor projected what I felt was perfect for the character - simply amused resignation that his time had come.

Even compared to the novel, however, it was pretty fluffy. In the novel, Scaramouche slowly evolves into a revolutionary idealist from a jaded cynic. While in both he's driven by the murder of his friend, in the movie it's all about revenge (and, to be fair, how hollow revenge is, which I liked - revenge is idiotic and I'm glad that the movie, as in the book, the desolation of seeking revenge is made clear). In the novel, well, it's actually about the Revolution, and eventually the Revolution's excesses! The movie doesn't touch on any of that, and wraps it up with a wedding.

And typical for a 50s movie, the female roles are pretty bland. Which I don't like, but it's something you've got to accept in most movies from the 50s onward. There are two female leads - played by Eleanor Parker and Janet Leigh, both talented actresses - but they exist merely as objects of love or lust for the hero. In the end, he chooses the good, pure and high born girl instead of the low born and quick witted woman with experience. Oh, well, I suspect that after the end credits roll Scaramouche would be going back to the actress in about ten minutes after being completely bored with his pure little noblewoman. But, like I said, while I don't like that kind of thing, I've learned to endure it.