Fantasy 

The Thief of Bagdad (1940)

Prince Ahmad is betrayed by his vizier, Jaffar, and imprisoned.  He escapes with the help of Abu, a young thief, and together they see a princess that Ahmad falls in love with.  She is the daughter of the Sultan, and Jaffar wants her, so he magically blinds Ahmad and turns Abu into a dog.  Ahmad and Abu must counter the spell, save the princess, and defeat Jaffar, and to do so, they will meet a Genie, fly a carpet, and battle monsters.

Alexander Korda set out to make a lush, visually stunning homage to the silent film of the same name, dumping most of the story, but keeping the tone.  In that, he succeeded, but with his attention focused on epic wonder, he forgot characters and charm, and created a rather sterile picture that is more interesting than enjoyable.  Films of the ‘90s and later are often accused of forgetting old silver screen values and putting special effects, costumes, and sets, above story, theme, and characters.  Well, it’s hardly a new phenomenon, and The Thief of Bagdad may be the worst offender ever made.  It is a beautiful film, with remarkable map paintings creating mountains around a well stuffed Bagdad (generally spelled Baghdad now, but one should never contradict movie spellings).  Every frame is jammed with the sights of a fantasy Arabia. 

Conrad Veidt is a personification of evil, Miles Malleson (generally seen in small-scale British comedies) is the perfect child-like Sultan, and Rex Ingram chews the scenery as a dangerous genie.  Sabu is acceptable as the thief, although it does sound like he’s reading his lines from cue cards.  The romantic leads are pretty enough people, and as that is what they are there for, they do the job they were hired for.

But for all its spectacular scenes, such as the genie on the beach or the attack of the monstrous spider, it is a cold film.  The feature's production problems are famous.  Filming was moved from Britain to the U.S. due to bombings, and six different directors had their hands in.  But a lack of a coherent vision is not the film’s problem, particularly as it was producer Korda who held fast to the reins.  The problem is that everyone had the wrong vision.  The camera often dwells on the lavishness of the sets, leaving the characters as nothing more than another piece of the background.  In one case, the princess rides from the palace in frantic haste, frightened.  But we don’t see her emotional state, or even her face.  Instead we are given a long shot of what could be any girl on a horse, allowing us to view the street and buildings.

It doesn’t help that the romantic leads are not the protagonists.  Things happen to them; they do not act.  But then their entire romance is hard to take, even in a fantasy.  They both fall in love at first sight.  Ahmad is captured, rescued, struck blind, brought to the palace, tossed up on a faraway shore, found, and tossed back to Bagdad.  The princess just stands around (when she’s not in a coma) and looks sad and pretty.   I started to think evil Jaffar ought to win as at least he’s trying.  Abu is pretty active as well, but it’s hard to figure out why.  He wants to go off with Sinbad early on, and I can’t come up with a reason why he doesn’t.

Then there is the poorly chosen music.  From time to time, Abu sings (and in an otherwise non-musical, it is jarring), but nothing that sounds remotely Middle-Eastern.  The songs, and the background music, are too Hollywood (or too Brit film), setting the wrong tone.  It feels like 1940s California, not ancient Bagdad.

For a romantic adventure, there’s no romance and only impersonal adventure.

Modern audiences should note how much Disney swiped from The Thief of Bagdad for the animated Aladdin.  There’s the evil Jaffar who runs the kingdom (Disney’s version even looks like Conrad Veidt), a beautiful princes with an infantile Sultan-father who loves toys, a sidekick named Abu who steals and is non-human (well, he’s only a dog for part of The Thief of Bagdad, while he’s a monkey or elephant for all of Aladdin), a powerful Genie, a flying carpet, and an item to be taken from a trapped temple.  But here is a case of the copy being superior; even though Aladdin’s characters are drawn, they have much more life.

   Back to Fantasy