RAFAEL
SABATINI AND SCARAMOUCHE
“... although I appreciate the artistry and skill of
the producer and the actor concerned, I feel that Ramon Novarro was not quite
happy in the leading rôle. Whether due
to some unsuitability of his own temperament or to the method of attack
adopted, it seemed to me that he played too straight and too seriously, thereby
failing to suggest the irresponsible rascal who was ‘born with a gift for
laughter and a sense that the world was mad.’ [sic]
~ Adapted From
the Novel, Strand Magazine, November 1925
In this passage about Scaramouche, the 1923 film directed by Rex Ingram, there are three
things that struck me.
* To take the
least first, the phrase “method of attack”, which reflects Rafael’s experience
of hearing his parents teach vocal technique, and his experience of learning to
fence.
* The second
is Rafael’s use of the words “happy” and “irresponsible rascal”. This point will be enlarged upon.
* The phrase
“irresponsible rascal”, now in the context of its application to the character
Scaramouche, (the stage role of André-Louis
Moreau), as he appears in a pair of linked novels by Rafael.
Rafael’s formal writing in English sometimes raises
the question of whether he is using a word as would an Englishman born,
educated in a public school and at Oxford.
As we know, he was none of these things.
“Happy” carries other connotations, of which his writings show awareness:
“well suited for a purpose”, “fortunate”, and “apt” being some. Disconcertingly, Rafael would on occasion
slip easily out of his adopted ‘English’ persona into the European, chiefly
French, that was his foundation. The
novel Scaramouche itself provides a
notable example: “The police will do your affair for
you”, threatens the Marquis de La Tour d'Azyr. About “irresponsible” there
is no ambiguity, about “rascal” there is.
If used with serious intent, it means “knave”, “scoundrel”, and so
on. But the English in particular use it
with humorous, affectionate intent, as they do “imp” and “impish”, and even
“rogue” and “roguishly”.
Now to the crux of the problem: the character
created across two novels, partly through the evidence of his actions, partly
through authorial interventions. In the
course of these two novels we see André-Louis
Moreau develop, as life forces on him more and more complex questions, from his
youthful self very confident in his knowledge of philosophy, logic, and law,
not foreseeing what choices he will have to make, often in life-or-death matters,
into the proverbial ‘sadder but wiser man’.
Is André the
Scaramouche of the commedia dell’arte? On
the evidence of the novels Rafael did not intend it to be so. André does not make
mischief, merely for the pleasure it gives him, nor run away laughing from the
imbroglio that he has brought about. (To
charge him with being in fact a Scaramouche because on two occasions he runs
away to save his life is not just.) Why,
then, did Rafael make such a response to the question posed to him in 1925? What follows is my understanding of the matter.
Though as time passed Rafael wrote of
protagonists who were not heroic or exemplary, (King in Prussia, The Gamester) and a single out-of-character novel,
The Minion, Rafael Sabatini is always
either loved or criticised for the idealism that, in spite of all, survives
even in late work. In 1919, Rafael had
no reason to make a hero/ protagonist of such a character as the commedia Scaramouche, in fact it went
against the grain of his fiction. (The Minion is an exception since it is
an interpretation of an episode in history.)
Was this the reason for the destruction of
his first manuscript, 50,000 words long?
He never explained, or even hinted at a reason, but he may have found
his “method of attack” untrue to his instincts.
Yet, the ghost of a work destroyed of choice can linger. Did something of the ur-Scaramouche,
something beyond his name (compelling attention in a title, as Esther Forbes
recorded) – a name which itself influences many readers’ judgement of André – remain in
Rafael’s mind, causing him to put into many other characters’ mouths that very
accusation of which he clears André by his authorial interventions, and by the
witness of André’s
actions? It would seem that Rafael the
novelist, partly mindful of his readers’ expectations, partly inclined (at that
time) to the hero rather than the anti-hero, thus found a way to combine the commedia
character - as an appellation misapplied to the hero of the novels, and used by
André himself in irony
or self-deprecation – with the actual character in his novels.
It is to be doubted that the novelist
himself was able to translate the complexity of his character from the first
novel into either version of his own dramatisation for the stage. Reviews suggest (implicitly) that the role
offered no scope to even a competent actor under the direct influence of Rafael
to make of it both a hero and an irresponsible rascal. This being so, how could it be expected of
the film’s André to
succeed even had its screenplay come from Rafael’s pen?
Was this truly Rafael’s reason for his unfavourable
comment on Rex Ingram’s film?
Every viewer will have an opinion not
necessarily the same as mine. Within the
limitations of a silent film, Ramon Novarro’s realisation was true enough to
the novel, whose André
is not an irresponsible rascal.
Could there be another reason, maybe two, for Rafael’s judgement?
Though as time passed Rafael wrote of protagonists who were not heroic or exemplary, (King in Prussia, The Gamester) and a single out-of-character novel, The Minion, Rafael Sabatini is always either loved or criticised for the idealism that, in spite of all, survives even in late work. In 1919, Rafael had no reason to make a hero/ protagonist of such a character as the commedia Scaramouche, in fact it went against the grain of his fiction. (The Minion is an exception since it is an interpretation of an episode in history.)
Was this the reason for the destruction of his first manuscript, 50,000 words long? He never explained, or even hinted at a reason, but he may have found his “method of attack” untrue to his instincts. Yet, the ghost of a work destroyed of choice can linger. Did something of the ur-Scaramouche, something beyond his name (compelling attention in a title, as Esther Forbes recorded) – a name which itself influences many readers’ judgement of André – remain in Rafael’s mind, causing him to put into many other characters’ mouths that very accusation of which he clears André by his authorial interventions, and by the witness of André’s actions? It would seem that Rafael the novelist, partly mindful of his readers’ expectations, partly inclined (at that time) to the hero rather than the anti-hero, thus found a way to combine the commedia character - as an appellation misapplied to the hero of the novels, and used by André himself in irony or self-deprecation – with the actual character in his novels.
It is to be doubted that the novelist himself was able to translate the complexity of his character from the first novel into either version of his own dramatisation for the stage. Reviews suggest (implicitly) that the role offered no scope to even a competent actor under the direct influence of Rafael to make of it both a hero and an irresponsible rascal. This being so, how could it be expected of the film’s André to succeed even had its screenplay come from Rafael’s pen?
Was this truly Rafael’s reason for his unfavourable comment on Rex Ingram’s film?
Every viewer will have an opinion not necessarily the same as mine. Within the limitations of a silent film, Ramon Novarro’s realisation was true enough to the novel, whose André is not an irresponsible rascal. Could there be another reason, maybe two, for Rafael’s judgement?
But a poster in German and several in English, possibly
made in response to a protest by his U.S. publisher conveying the novelist’s
anger, advertise the film as “from the famous novel by Rafael Sabatini”. Yet even the failure to give him credit, of
the first announcements and posters, is not entirely as represented by Rafael.
No matter how popular Rex Ingram’s previous films might
have been, we need not doubt that it was the succès
fou of the novel which had the western world agog at the news of a film being
made of it, and by such a director, with his customary lead actors, Ramon
Novarro and Alice Terry. Periodicals
such as Motion Picture News, and Exhibitors Trade Review, gave this fact
prominence in their excited reports of progress in the film’s making. The latter even mentions Rafael’s play, due
to open in New York at the same time as the film’s premiere.
Ah, the play! We
have seen that it was not only Rafael’s solo work; his guidance had been sought
by producer and lead actor – coming to London themselves. In terms of number of performances it was
modestly successful, given sixty-one times over two months. But it was not a succès
d’estime.
What fault/s had the critics found?
These have been seen in an earlier section. Among them was the choice of lead actor, as
also described. How galling, then, to
find in Ramon Novarro an actor better suited to his role, although this was
denied by Rafael on a charge I find specious.
The 1925 letter in The
Bookman describes the novelist’s feelings about the consequence of Metro’s
initial posters that did not give him credit for the novel. In 1924 came the film of his novel, Captain Blood, another novel with resounding
success. The contrast between the
deference accorded him by Albert Smith, and the failure of Rex Ingram to
consult Rafael, was surely galling. To
me all this adds up to make a singular case ... the Case of Rafael Sabatini’s attitude
to Scaramouche, both as character in his novels and as interpreted on screen.
First, my apologies for the strange way that BLOGGER has altered the format of my text part of the way. There is no way I have ever found - being untutored in the use of a computer - to control & correct what has been done to my blogs ever since I started in 2006.
This is the concluding section of ADDENDA to ROMANTIC PRINCE: SEEKING SABATINI.
Together with the much revised & enlarged edition of the 2 vols. of ROMANTIC PRINCE, it is available to download free as a PDF file. [Refer my earlier blog - https://attica-ruth.blogspot.com/2017/11/romantic-prince-revised-edition.html ]
Apply through 'Comment' here, or if you know me apply through e-mail.
Ruth Heredia is the originator and holds the copyright to all material on this blog unless credited to some source. Please do not use it or pass it off as your own work. That is theft. If you wish to link it, quote it, or reprint in whole or in part, please be courteous enough to seek my permission.
Apply through 'Comment' here, or if you know me apply through e-mail.
Ruth Heredia is the originator and holds the copyright to all material on this blog unless credited to some source. Please do not use it or pass it off as your own work. That is theft. If you wish to link it, quote it, or reprint in whole or in part, please be courteous enough to seek my permission.
