“One of my lighter efforts, where I was engaged, given the part, to toy with my celebrity, as was, and also did, my co-star, Gloria Swanson.

Dear Gloria, what a sparkling soul, that eternal twinkle in her eye! How fortunate I saw myself, being cast with someone of her stature, perhaps the lead female at Paramount in those now seemingly remote times. A series of ‘set pieces’ that film, strung together by wispy wires, what we know as plot. High society romp, an excuse for both of us to be clothes horses! Costume changes galore! Style-setting we were, and gallant was I, with Gloria’s character, furiously kissing her hand but also suavely disguising that ardor. She, and I, really enjoyed certain aspects of that screenplay ~ the social whirl and the exoticism implied by our coupling. Scandalous it was at the time, just a bit juicy. Marrying in haste, or for money, ends up laying waste. Trite perhaps, but true. And Gloria knew that too! Savvy she was! We both joked when not on camera, had some flippant moments. What a grande dame! I have nothing but the utmost respect for her ~ as a woman, as an actor!

Loved the in-studio scene where I rescued her on the snowy cliff, and the French flashback with its incarnational reverberations and import. An excellent way to read the entrails of our connection ~ as characters, of course! Parfois, nous avons parlé français sur la scène, pour mieux décaler nos efforts (sometimes we spoke French on camera, in order to better unleash/bring forth our efforts.) Paramount almost had a big hit here and the film did do reasonably well but it needed polishing, better continuity. Natacha dressed me to the nines, plus fours, and tuxes too. Such were the social circles depicted. So glad this film was revived and people were able to see it aglow, lo, so many years after the fact. Rumored that Gloria and I had rapport. Yes, that was true. We giggled at our fame and success while being faithful to what the public expected us to do.

The message was that turbulence in the water and barriers such as rocks can have some pretty startling results. Unexpected consequences, unforeseen conclusions always lie, just beyond the rocks.” ~ Rudolph Valentino

Of all the channelings I’ve done on the films of Rudolph Valentino, this one, I think, is perhaps the most poignant. Rudy revealing some parts of self in a very personal way and, at the same time, providing us with an in-depth analysis of his character, and this film….

“Let us take a good look at “Blood and Sand” (Paramount, 1922) perhaps the gutsiest of my films ~ in more ways than one. My character is Juan, an everyman lost in the woods of his own making. He has certain dreams which involve escaping the abject poverty of his clan and their chosen profession, “zapateros,” shoemakers, as you call them in Spanish. His father is deceased so that firm hand is nowhere to be seen. His mother does her best with a slightly recalcitrant, devil-may-care son. But Juan, like so many men, puts women on a pedestal, more perhaps than he ought, and this is both his salvation and curse. He uses the male energy of his being to interact with nature, with brute force represented in the person of the bull, a literal dance with death though it’s really a metaphor for life, a dance for all time.

In the course of the film, Juan pursues his dreams which, in some cases, need to be refined. He is confused by his attraction to a woman of the world, Doña Sol, yet he perseveres with his wife, that all-too-angelic soul, as depicted in the film. Most men do not have contrasts drawn so sharply in their lives but this is a morality play. That is how I saw it at the time and the way that most in the audience perceived it too, a medieval morality play with the options writ large. The obsession, the blind obedience, the unquestioning nature of my character, Juan, leads to his destruction. And he still lives on, in the hearts of too many in the body. There are women with his qualities also so this film was not just instructive for one sex. He does not really see the consequences of his behavior and in the end suffers from a lack of insight.

Juan is a man of instinct. Good as a rule but, dear Readers, our instincts must also be refined, expanded, thought-upon and, at times, released when they no longer serve. Instinct can be confused with the vagaries of personality. We speak of them in metaphysical circles as guide posts which they are but then comes the necessary reckoning with the big picture, what the soul needs to have happen in a given situation. Sometimes we have contracted to play things out in such a way as would be considered a ‘bad’ end. Juan’s case was one of those. His dream was cut short by his untimely death, a foreshadowing of what occurred in my own life. I, too, like Juan, was stubborn in that I reveled in the realm of the senses, regaled myself with them everyday, sometimes imbibing or satiating myself a bit too much. I loved to eat, also a bit of the grape and, of course, all of the things of the body, the electricity of sex perhaps above all. But these things, while wonderful in and of themselves, can sometimes become a means to an end, literally and figuratively. Juan and I in some ways were like peas in a pod. I loved that portrayal, having the opportunity to step into that role. Tailor-made it was for me.

I became immersed. I was the letter, it was the envelope. We fit together like hand in glove. Juan Gallardo was one of the most salient parts I had as an actor, and this film, though a fable of Spain, continues to be relevant to all times and places. The lesson implicit in the script is that just about any form of gluttony does not pay. It is a perverse instinct that really must be tamed and we can only effectively work on it while in the flesh, where we can see its effects in all their glory. Juan worked with bulls but in a way was a pig, never knowing when to stop, to call a halt to his liaison with Doña Sol, to end his obsession with his virginal wife, to re-assess his over-reliance on physical prowess. If it felt good once, let’s do it again; that was his motto. There are times to walk away or change tunes and Juan did not avail himself of those opportunities. And, in a way, neither did I when I inhabited the body known as Rodolfo Valentino

Juan was also a love, sweet beyond belief in his roguish ways and therefore very attractive to both women in his life. The character presents the parable of saint and sinner.

This script, like all movie scripts, like all definable situations, is a dream, Juan’s dream; at least, that is how we are perceiving it in this discussion. We can look at it from many angles including, of course, from the points of view of the other characters and why they chose to participate.

 Again, I was perhaps more in sync with this role, both with the broad strokes and little flourishes, than with any other of my relatively brief career in front of the camera. Juan is I and I am Juan ~ not entirely of course, but there are remarkable congruencies.” ~ Rudolph Valentino [Read more…]

“Artfully is how I approached this film, which is what Natacha and I had in mind; a big splash, my return to the silver screen after what seemed like a rather lengthy absence. Nice work if you can get it, to play dual roles, fey-ish and foppish though they both were on some level. But, I reveled in the details, got lost in some of them too: les dentelles (laces) ~ les mouches (beauty marks) ~ les perruques (wigs.) Tout ça (all of that) was a stretch for me but at the same time expressed aspects of what my characters wanted to be. The intrigue of the court ~ le badinage (banter) ~ les froux (flourishes) ~ les poux (lice) ~ well, they all were a mash up, blend, a lovely glass of port! Yes, “Monsieur Beaucaire” had that aspect to it, decadence, but masking the power that lurked below, under the surface, as personified by the King and court. Though I jumped at the chance to act ‘en papillote’ (figuratively, in parchment or curling paper) ~ I was constrained, as it were, by the weight of the visuals and all that de luxe. The most fun was to be a swordsman, the dashing and daring of my ‘real self ‘ as opposed to the barber/confidant. The female characters, I remember, were of the cardboard variety and that was all as it should be. No real connections with my co-stars in this outing, only superficial ones. Funny, no, odd to admit that now. Well, this was an exercise in excess, lots of trappings with a very slight story line to support them, sort of like wet wash hanging from delicate tree limbs. In our efforts to get things ‘right,’ we missed the big picture, and in making this observation I mean myself, Natacha, and the Director, so blinded by our desire to create a work of art were we.

Many critics panned this movie and I would say that the whole of it boils down to one of my least favorites. Top-heavy it was, like the hair pieces we all wore and fussy, like the ribbons that festooned our pantaloons. Light and shadow, having a field day! Unfortunately, stories of another century do not always comport well with the current one. Again, what I liked best was the swordplay, my chance to inject a little ‘Fairbanks’ into the picture. Paramount was sorely disappointed with its performance. Not the right vehicle for my comeback, but quite a few poses! Un bal masqué, the perfect metaphor for this film.” ~ Rudolph Valentino

“The imprint that continues its effect, even to this day. Not exactly my favorite role, but in some ways perhaps the most stellar of my career!

Have you ever seen a simpering Sheik? Neither have I so when Paramount proposed I take the part, and even though Natacha thought very little of it, I was determined to give it a ‘go,’ to imbue what Mrs. Hull had written with flesh and bone. Then, as we began to shoot, I soon realized that the script, and Director, were steering me toward stereotype, I, the Arab, who apparently actually was of European origin. Agnes Ayres was a peach, and I mean that in the fullest sense of 1920’s lingo. She fulfilled the other half of the puzzle and created, along with my efforts and character, great congruency with the original story. Yes, we were faithful to it but, of course, with certain liberties and truncations. Fun it was to embrace the accoutrements of the role ~ crescent-shaped blades, daggers, baggy trousers, turbans, capes and the like ~ rather exotic, the whole enterprise, for we were breaking new ground, cracking the code, the one that guaranteed that racial divisions stay intact. So that is why, from my current vantage point, I see this film as having been significant, a foot in the door for cross-cultural and ethnic connections ~ to make them more palatable to the public, expand consciousness.

The part called for great physicality, and I was more than ready to oblige. My prowess with horses and animals of all types came into play, added yet another ingredient to the mix. Did I over-do in a few scenes? Of course, Friends ~ as seen through your lenses. But, it was appropriate at the time, for what we wanted to accomplish, and what the Director required. Color had a role in this film too as certain scenes were given greater heft by the addition of tinting, the sands of the desert made more inviting perhaps than they would ordinarily be. An unexpected hit for Paramount, and a signature role, as it turned out ~ what I could not foresee when first it was shown.

Hard to believe but there were aspects of this film that were challenging for me. A little touch of priggery, superciliousness, in a few scenes when I spurn Agnes’ character, behavior which was not at all commensurate with my personal style and therefore somewhat hard to pull off. But I did, and effectively enough so that no one noticed I had to work at it. Women’s fantasies were raised, albeit tickled by the premise of this script, and enchantment reigned. Once upon a time, “The Sheik” was on everyone’s mental screen, and in a gaggle of cinemas too, a box-office champ of 1921. Quite a gambit! And so it was that I became elevated, risen, as a star. I suppose you could say I was truly hatched!” ~ Rudolph Valentino