Raffles (1939), directed by Sam Wood

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "Thief", by The Fratellis

       If you ever went through a Victorian literature phase as a child or spent a weekend binging on Benedict Cumberbatch vehicles, then chances are you’ve probably heard of Arthur Conan Doyle and his infamously intelligent detective Sherlock Holmes. What you might not know however is that Sir Doyle had a relative who was also a famous published author, at least at the time. Ernest William Hornung was his name, Doyle’s brother-in-law, and although his writing career began in 1887, it wasn’t until 1899 that he literary world got its first glimpse of what would ultimately be his most enduring creation: Ananias Justice Raffles, a charming, well-to-do cricketeer with more than a passing similarity to Hornung’s friend and fellow wordsmith Oscar Wilde who moonlighted as a gentleman thief known as The Amateur Cracksman, stealing hearts and valuables while dodging the bumbling bobbies of Scotland Yard. Raffles proved to be rather popular during the early part of the 20th century, spawning several more books, a couple of plays and of course several films in both the silent and sound era, but interest in the character seemed to wane after the 1930s. A film in 1958 and a short-lived TV series in ‘77, and that’s been about it for ol’ A.J. in the pop culture sphere ever since, aside from a cameo in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and maybe a Philip José Farmer book. I’ve not read the books, so I can’t claim this is some great oversight or anything, but it is surprising just how obscure Hornung and Raffles have become given that connection to Arthur Conan Doyle. You’d think that we would have already seen a big budget film where Tom Hiddleston Sherlock has to try and catch Idris Elba Raffles from stealing the crown jewels or something at this point. I mean if the Power Rangers can cross over with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles then anything is possible, am I right?

       By the way netflix, if you want to throw me a couple million dollars for that pitch, I won’t mind.

       Released in 1939 and produced by Samuel Goldwyn (who you might know from some shit film studio called MGM), the simply titled Raffles turned out to be not only the last film to star Hornung’s character for over a decade, but the second-to-last film to star him to date. David Niven, about a decade away from his award-winning performance in Separate Tables, plays the titular A.J. Raffles,  a cricketing star who happens to be the master thief known as The Amateur Cracksman. Or at least he was, until a meeting with his lady love Gwen Manders (Olivia de Havilland, herself a few years away from Academy gold for To Each His Own) convinces him to give up a life of crime. Or at least it might have, if his old school chum and Gwen’s brother Bunny didn’t come to him begging for a thousand pounds in order to settle some gambling debts. Reluctantly Raffles decides to pull out The Amateur Cracksman for one last job, figuring the Lord and Lady Melrose are easy enough marks, only to discover that Scotland Yard has somehow gotten wind of a future robbery at the Melrose Manor and now have eyes and ears on the place. With the deck stacked against him on multiple fronts, can Raffles make it out with the loot and pay off Bunny’s debt, or will London’s greatest thief finally see in the inside of a prison cell? And will it involve wickets of any kind, sticky or otherwise?

       At times Raffles can be fairly interesting. The actual scene of the Melrose theft is actually rather tense, done as it is in almost complete silence, and the cat & mouse interplay between Raffles and Inspector Mackenzie is the most entertaining dialogue in the film. However, as a story meant to introduce audiences to the character it falls flat. Why did Raffles become The Amateur Cracksman? No idea, aside from the implication that cricketing doesn’t pay the bills. Is being old school chums with Bunny really worth Raffles risking arrest and imprisonment? Apparently so,  since Bunny is barely a character in the damn movie and he’s too much of a milksop to endear himself to an audience. And most important of all, why should I care that if he’s caught or not? I mean this guy isn’t Robin Hood after all, there’s no theme of social injustice  or combating corruption here, he’s a member of the idle rich who plays a sport that’s only popular in about three countries and who steals from other idle rich to pay his bills. That’s not relatable, at least to me, and although there are moments where they try to make Raffles seem compassionate, more often than not he came across as smarmy and manipulative. Which could also be said of Sherlock Holmes, but then Holmes stories not only have Watson as the humanizing element, but they have a mystery for the audience to focus on. Not so for this film, and I feel like it suffers for it.

Of course the main purpose of this film was likely to be a vehicle for David Niven and Olivia de Havilland, and as far as that goes they’re not too bad when they’re not trying to be romantic. Maybe it’s because the most dialogue they ever share with each other at once might be an expository scene where they explain why these two characters are supposedly in love, but every time they try to do a romantic moment it comes across as slightly awkward to me. It would have likely helped if Gwen was more of a character and less of an object devoted to Raffles, but I’m guessing that was too radical for 1930s Hollywood. Olivia de Havilland looked pretty nice though, I’ve gotta say. 

Combine all that with a middle of the road score and a setting that consisted mostly of various rooms and you’ve got yourself a by-the-books average kind of movie in Raffles. If you’re into Victorian literature and you were looking for something beyond the surface level, or you’re looking for something to double feature with your Basil Rathbone Holmes movies, then this might be worth a watch. If not, then there are plenty of other movies in the sea. Probably not that many that involve cricket though.