emuir-1 Made three years after the end of WW1, the one thing which stood out for me in this film was the blatant unapologetic racism. When Lady Diana thought that the man who kidnapped and carried her off to his desert tent was an Arab, she was ashamed and humiliated to be seen with him, despite his constant references to his life and education in Paris, but when it was revealed he was the orphaned child of an English mother and Spanish father and had been adopted by the old sheik after his parents had been found dying in the desert, then it was acceptable to fall in love and marry him. In one scene his writer friend from Paris admonished him for the embarrassment and humiliation he had inflicted upon a white woman by flaunting her in front of a man of her own race. That aside, this was quite fun to watch and the settings of old Algiers and the luxurious desert tent were excellent. I particularly liked the stylish title cards. Perhaps it was the cameras they were working with in 1921, but I did feel they could have used more close ups rather than the long shots. When they made the sequel in 1925, the difference was noticeable, lots of close ups and different angles. One scene in the desert appeared to be missing. Diana was rescued from the bandits without us ever seeing how or why, but considering the volatility of the old nitrate films and that many we see today are remnants found in obscure collections and pieced together bit by bit, that can be forgiven.

ironhorse_iv The Sheik, by modern standards is a controversial film that portray Arabs in the most unsettling light, by having the main characters dealt with the trade of "white sex slavery". In other words, it refers to the real-life sexual enslavement of white women by non-Europeans, as part of the Arab, Barbary and Ottoman slave trade routes. Directed by George Melford, and based on rather horrifying romantic novel written in 1919 by Edith Maude "E.M." Hull. It was the first of a series of novels she wrote with desert settings that set off a major revival of the "desert romance" genre of romantic fiction. Adapted to the screen by screenwriter, Monte M. Katterjohn, the film tells the story of Diana Mayo (Agnes Ayres), an independent, strong-willed young English noblewoman, whom undertakes a solo exploratory trip through the Sahara. Only to be kidnapped by Ahmed Ben Hassan (Rudolph Valentino), an Arab Sheik lusting for her. For the most part, the Sheik sees her, as nothing more than a sex slave; but after time, spending with her, he realize that he has fallen in love with the westerner; well as long, as she is willing to adapt to Arab culture and stop looking down on them. However, the bandit Omair (Walter Long) thinks otherwise of their union, and plans to ruin it for him, by capturing Diana for himself. Can the Sheik get her back? Watch the movie to find out! Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, the film is a lot tamer than the novel. In the novel, Sheik Ahmed rapes Lady Diana multiply times, in order to make her, love him. Not only that, but he continues to physical and mentally torture her, until she snaps from PTSD, and falls in love with her captor. While, the 'Stockholm Syndrome' elements still existed within the film story; his abuse to her, is tone down, to a few scenes of him, demanding she dress like a woman. Even the rape is only suggested as a curtain closes on Sheik Ahmed and Lady Diana before there is any physical contact between the two. The film even cuts the suicide attempt by Diana from the novel. Another thing, the movie cut from the book is the sub-story of the Sheik's father, the Sheik's own fatherhood and his struggles to live with the consequences of his actions. This plot point is dropped in the movie, in which it is revealed that both of Ahmed's parents died after their guide abandoned them in the desert, and the fact, that his son hasn't been born yet. However, they did explore this issue in the sequel, 1926's 'The Son of the Sheik', which is often considered the superior film compare to the original. One thing, I didn't like about the film and the novel is when the Sheik's true heritage is reveal. It's definitely comes off as a white-washing cop-out, however, in 1919 it was unheard-of that a white man would rather be a 'savage' than a 'good' Englishman. Also, the talks about 'mixed' marriage, were somewhat ground-breaking. It somewhat reminds me of 1962's 'Lawrence in Arabia", for a bit, there. Anyways, 'The Sheik" was a surprised hit, at the time. It helped propel Rudolph Valentino to super-stardom. After all, Valentino was at the time, the greatest male attraction, often picture in exotic, adventurous romantic pictures. He was indeed a big hit for the ladies, because of his handsome, hot-blooded Italian-born nature. However, his screen premise wasn't like, by most men at the time, as his on screen persona and questioned his masculinity was often criticize as homoerotic. I guess, at the time, dancing and singing wasn't a thing, a man should do. Nevertheless, this man could dance, but he also somewhat sings. As prove on here, where he later, provide music like 'Kashmiri Song" & "The Sheik of Araby" for the film, when talkies became available. Since, the film has no sound when it first came out, performers had to show emotion through facial expressions and gestures. I do agree with some critics, that he wasn't the best actor to do that. Nonetheless, this film is probably the role he's best remembered for today, due to the fact that a brand of popular condoms was named after him, due to this role. In my opinion, I like him, better in 1921's 'The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse'. It's sad, that he died so early in his young life, from a perforated ulcer. He had so much more to give. The same with his co-star, Agnes Ayres who died from Cerebral hemorrhage at the age of 42. She really did shine in this role, despite her character, being portray more as a victim, rather than a heroine. Anyways, besides the alright acting. The movie is still worth watching for a film historian standard for its visuals. I love the use of yellow, brown and orange film tilt. It really does set the mood of the harsh environment of the desert. The action scenes are also worth-checking out. Surprising, the shoot-outs are still entertaining, despite being over 90 years old. Since, the movie is so old, it resulted, with the film, falling into public domain, meaning that virtually anyone could duplicate and sell a DVD copy of this. Therefore, many of the versions of this film available on the market are either severely or badly edited. Since many of them, come from extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation copies. Don't count on the audio and film footage to be good. Not only that, but it had a lot of scratches, and discoloring in the film footage. So watch out for that. Overall: While, the Sheik hasn't aged well since it first came out, due to its rampant sexism and racism undertones. It's still not as savage and backwater, as some modern viewers make it out to be. So check it out, if you want to.

MissSimonetta The Sheik is a film more famous for how it boosted the career of its leading star rather than how it works as an actual movie. It's often (mis)labeled as a classic (probably because many people assume "classic film"=anything made before 1980) and I was surprised to find it on the AFI's Top 100 Passions list. In truth, The Sheik is very weak and dated, sporting weak performances by its leads and a serious lack of the promised sex appeal.Lady Diana Mayo (Agnes Ayres) is an independent young Englishwoman who has shocked her society peers by going on an excursion through the Sahara desert in the company of Arabs. She catches the attentions of a tribal prince, the sheik Ahmed Ben Hassan (Rudolph Valentino), who decides he wants her as his bride. He kidnaps her and holds her captive in his tent, where she resists his advances, but finds herself slowly falling for him in spite of herself.Though the story is far from politically correct, that is not the reason why The Sheik fails. The plot is pure sexual fantasy. It's escapist melodrama and we are not to take it seriously, which is why my inner feminist is not too offended by the sadomasochistic romance. The film fails because it lacks the eroticism necessary to make the story effective. This is due to the performances of the film's leading stars. In Valentino's case, there is a want of subtlety; in Ayres', a want for passion.Despite it being the most iconic role of the famous screen lover Rudolph Valentino, his performance isn't all that good. I normally love Valentino in his other films; he's no brilliant actor or anything, but he's not lacking in talent. Aside from being really good-looking, he has a charm and charisma that draw your eyes to him whenever he's on screen. His acting is restrained and, like the best silent screen actors, he expresses so much with his eyes. So when I see him mugging for the camera in The Sheik, all I can do is wonder what the hell went wrong. I don't know if it's the director's fault or if Rudy was having a bought of temporary insanity, but his broad performance is totally unlike him and just doesn't work. There's nothing remotely erotic about it.Ayres doesn't give her character enough life or personality. We're made to assume that Diana is an independent and adventurous woman: early in the film, she turns down a suitor's proposal by saying that she regards marriage as prison; she's brave enough to go on a desert expedition without her brother there to protect her; and she's strong-willed enough to refuse the sheik's advances and orders. From what I just wrote, you'd expect a pretty fiery character wouldn't you? Well, Ayres' portrayal of Diana is anything but fiery. She's not very expressive, and looks confused and frightened for the majority of the film. Ayres also gives Diana little characterization, making her an independent woman in name only. She fails to bring any life to this strong-willed character, giving Diana no more than a pretty face with a vaguely defined personality.If Diana being a free spirit is unbelievable, then even more unbelievable is her eventual love for Ahmed. The lack of chemistry between Valentino and Ayres is what kills the film. We're told over the story he gradually bends her to his will, but we're never shown such a development. For the majority of her captivity, Diana is repulsed and unresponsive to the sheik's love-making. There's not a sign of arousal or surrender whenever he steals a kiss or an embrace, no sign of her opinion of Ahmed slowly changing as time goes on. Then, all of a sudden she's completely fallen for him, worrying about his welfare and dreamily writing "I love you, Ahmed" in the sand! That being said, The Sheik isn't all bad (I'd take it over sparkly vampires any day). It has a great deal of unintentional humor which makes it entertaining, and it's a good way to waste an hour and a half if you're bored. It's just no great classic or anything. And if you haven't gotten the chance to see Valentino in action, then go watch The Eagle or this film's sequel, The Son of the Sheik, both of which showcase his talent and sex appeal much better. 6/10

angeley I can't believe all the apologist critiques. The Sheik is so enjoyable, fun and Valentino is so warm and loving with his co-star, it is a must see! (Plus I love the music that comes with it) Remember also Valentino at this time in his life, was newly and madly in love with the love of his life, Natasha and he is just radiant throughout this whole film. It's been said that he along with the rest of the cast and crew had the time of their lives romping through the desert making this film. It truly shows.Valentino is gorgeous in this. I watch it periodically and it leaves the sweetest feeling with me. Go on about the subject matter, about the over emphasis on gestures (it's a silent film, that was the norm) but there is nothing better than to see this gifted and talented man act while he is probably at his most happiest in life.