Scarlet Dawn (1932) User Reviews

short film that takes place during the Russian revolution

[blanche-2 · 5/10 · 19 September 2015]

Douglas Fairbanks Jr. stars with Nancy Carroll and Lilyan Tashman in "Scarlet Dawn," a precode film from 1932.

Fairbanks plays a Russian baron, Nikita, who finds himself caught in the Russian Revolution, where he becomes one of the common people and realizes that he has no skills and needs a job.

He's nearly caught but after lying to the Reds, they take him to be identified and ask a servant, Tanyusha (Nancy Carroll) where he was staying about him. She plays along that he's not a baron, and he's released.

Nikita takes off for Istanbul (called by its old name here, Constantinople), and she follows. They marry; he gets a job washing dishes, and she gets one scrubbing floors.

The restaurant boss gives him a chance as busboy, he encounters an old love Vera (Lilyan Tashman) at the table. She waits for him outside and encourages him to go to Paris with her, where they can swindle a man and his daughter and enjoy some semblance of their old life.

Nikita agrees to go and tells Tanyusha that he will be sending her money and will return.

This film runs slightly under an hour, uses footage from the real Revolution or old Russia, I guess, and has that old trick of the paper showing headlines in Russian and then fading to English. Cracked me up.

For me the only good thing was Fairbanks, whom I love, and who always managed to hand in a performance that stands the test of time. He's handsome and sexy here, despite his sexual harassment of Tanyusha before they marry.

I'd say skip it.

From 76 to 57!

[JohnHowardReid · 6/10 · 17 March 2017]

It's a long way from 76 to 57, and when you're talking about 76 minutes compared to 57 minutes, you are referring - if my mathematics are correct - to a loss of 19 minutes. That's an enormous amount of footage that we don't see in current 2017 prints. Mind you, I would describe the 57 minutes version as melodramatic sludge that is mainly of curiosity value because of its interesting players, in particular Junior Fairbanks, Nancy Carroll, Lilyan Tashman and Sheila Terry. Guy Kibbee has a small role as Sheila's father. And if you're quick, you can spot Douglas Dumbrille as the revolutionary who is killed by the Fairbanks character, Nikiti.

Admittedly, the movie is superbly photographed by Ernest Haller, a much under-rated cinematographer. But the script - at least in its 57 minutes version - can only be described as melodramatic sludge. Alas, instead of sending it up or playing it light, director William Dieterle gives this sludge the same sort of reverent approach that he was later to so brilliantly employ for "The Story of Louis Pasteur".

Enjoyable drama of the Russian Revolution feels choppy and incomplete.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 14 November 2012]

A youthful and macho looking Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is a Russian aristocrat who looses everything when the Bolsheviks take over, and his peasant servant girl (Nancy Carroll) follows him like a love-starved puppy. The dramatic beginning becomes light-hearted and charming but moves back to serious as the lovers are separated after he briefly considers becoming involved in an attempt by other royals to try and take back what was theirs.

With the physical detail of a Josef Von Sternberg drama, this lavish but compact drama moves briskly but seems to be missing about 15 minutes of details which would answer questions and fill in some of the missing plot holes. For example, when Fairbanks meets up with an aristocratic old flame (Lilyan Tashman) after marrying Carroll, it appears that a good portion of the plot will deal with what the Russian aristocrats did to try to re-gain their positions, separating the two opposites who have obviously fallen in love. It is the absence of details like this which makes the film not as good as it could have been, but enjoyable nonetheless. An exciting chase sequence as the car which drove Fairbanks and Carroll to the border is a nice dramatic touch. The acting I found to be tepid, as if Fairbanks and Carroll were in a silent film (even though the movie moves like an operetta minus the songs) with dialog added. All the film is missing is George Arliss as a wise old aristocrat working to get the separated lovers back together.

From riches to rags

[dbdumonteil · 30 September 2009]

To be able to tell a story so eventful in less an hour is in itself a feat and William Dieterlé can't be praised too highly just for that .There are so many characters that sometimes the viewer does not know anymore who is who :even czar Nicholas appears in the flesh at the beginning.Never a dull moment;the Russian revolution only takes two scenes : the railway station where the hero is (fortunately) late and the panic in the streets .There's also a scene in his castle which the revolutionaries plunder : Jacques Feyder would copy it in his own "knight without armor" (1937);in that movie ,Marlene Dietrich is the noble one whereas her co-star Robert Donat is a plebeian.

Dieterle's taste for melodrama comes to the fore in the second part which takes place in Turkey. The connection between the scenes is sometimes thin and leaves the best till last.If this movie were remade,the ending would certainly be modified today.

Wasted potential

[MissSimonetta · 6/10 · 6 April 2014]

A lecherous, careless aristocrat and his timid, kind servant girl escape the Russian Revolution to live as peasants in Turkey. Not a bad concept for a pre-code melodrama, but the potential is wasted here. The writing is choppy and the 58-minute running time gives the characters little time to develop in a satisfactory manner.

Particularly unsatisfying is the relationship between Douglas Fairbanks Jr.'s aristocratic cad and Nancy Carroll's servant girl. We are told they are in love, but we never see why. When did Carroll's fear turn to love? Why did she fall for a man who's tried sexually assaulting her while she's working? I understand Fairbanks Jr. is a sexy man, but his character's personality is just not likable. It makes so little sense, making the "romantic" ending unsatisfying.

The leads are good given the material they have to work with, and Lilyan Tashman gives a decent performance as Fairbanks' vamp lover, which would prove to be one of her final roles before her untimely death in 1934. But overall, Scarlet Dawn (1932), for all its raciness, is forgettable.

Woefully incomplete and woefully unromantic.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 20 April 2010]

"Scarlet Dawn" is a film that appears to have been abandoned mid-way through the project. So, instead of the film having a decent resolution, it just seems to end very abruptly. Plus, while I think it is supposed to be a romance, it is about as romantic as a GI training film! The film begins during the throes of the Russian Revolution. Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is a member of the aristocracy and spends much of the first portion of the movie trying to escape the country. On the way, one of his servants (Nancy Carroll) meets up with him and they manage to make it to Turkey. After a while, they have spent so much time together that they decide "what the heck...let's get married"--though there really wasn't any build up to this and it seemed to come out of left field. Shortly after this, and this also came out of left field, he left his new bride to run around with a new lover ostensibly to make money by bilking American tourists. Months later, he starts to miss the wife and returns home--only to find her gone. When unemployed Russians are being rounded up and deported, they meet for a happy(?) ending.

So what's romantic about this supposed romance? There really isn't any love between Fairbanks and Carroll--only a low self-esteemed servant marrying her master because he suggested it. Carroll's character is like a lost puppy--without much substance and accepting whatever scraps Fairbanks throws her way. As for Fairbanks, while quite handsome, he has about as much appeal as day-old fish guts. Through much of the film he only thinks of himself and is a man with little substance. So between these two characters, there isn't much to connect with or care about, as they just aren't particularly appealing or likable. Plus, being only a 57 minute film, it comes off as very rushed and very incomplete. A great example of this incompleteness is that there is apparently a pregnancy that only briefly is alluded to at the end of the film. But, when the credits unexpectedly pop up, this has never been discussed in any way--like they just forgot about it. In fact, it just looked like the director gave up and ordered a wrap--even though the film wasn't quite finished! What's romantic about some cad who abandons his new wife?! The folks at Warner Brothers must have been smoking something funky when they wrote and then approved this script.

Comes The Counterevolution

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 26 March 2010]

Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work.

Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.

But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry.

Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.

What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.

I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players.

The peasants are revolting...and so is this movie!

[AlsExGal · 4/10 · 29 January 2010]

This movie has lots of action and little heart. Let's forget for a minute that it gets just about every aspect of the Russian Revolution wrong - after all we only have only under an hour here to tell our story. In fact, the czar abdicated after World War I proved a disaster for the country, and a provisional government tried to rule as a pseudo-democracy until the Leninists took power nine months later, mainly because they promised to immediately withdraw Russia from the war. Now, back to our story.

Here we have the revolution being "rumored" in Russian newspapers in what appears to still be a functioning country until violence erupts suddenly and upends the life of nobleman Baron Nikita 'Nikki' Krasnoff (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.). He flees his home with his former servant girl Tanyusha (Nancy Carroll) in tow, and they start to make a new life in Constantinople. Before the revolution the Baron made a regular habit out of making a play for the girl, not out of any real passion, but out of boredom as a diversion of sorts. The revolution doesn't change this, and he continues to try to take advantage of what is obviously a very simple girl. It certainly doesn't make the audience like this guy to see him toying with her so. Tanyusha follows the Baron because she literally has no place to go after the revolutionaries take over the Baron's home, and she has known no other life other than waiting on Nikki hand and foot. Once in Constantinople, Nikki quickly wearies of life as a penniless laborer, and that is when he meets up with his former lover, Russian aristocrat Vera Zimina, who has a plan for getting them to Paris where the Tsarists have congregated after the revolution. Unfortunately for Tanyusha, Vera's plan does not include her.

This film manages to completely waste the considerable acting talents of early talkie actress Nancy Carroll. She does a good job with what little she is given to do, but that is not much. Lilyan Tashman is the standout here, even though she has only a small role as Russian vamp Vera. Lilyan was so often given supporting roles just as she is here, but her earthy voice and glamorous looks make her the center of attention in every scene in which she appears. Guy Kibbee even shows up in a humorous bit as an American tourist who is curious about the Russian royalty that has been forcefully ejected from their homeland.

Tale Well Told

[Ron Oliver · 10/10 · 2 November 2004]

A Russian baron evades the violent SCARLET DAWN of the Revolution by escaping Moscow with his faithful serving maid.

Here is an excellent little film, from Warner Bros. and director William Dieterle, full of excitement, drama and pre-Code libidinousness. The production values--sets, costumes, score--are all first rate and the acting is of a high quality. The picture's only major drawback is its too-brief conclusion, perhaps necessitated by its short overall running time of under an hour, but this does not explain why the film should be so unjustly obscure today. It is a small gem awaiting discovery by viewers appreciative of quality cinema.

Douglas Fairbanks Jr is properly dashing as the young nobleman whose life is suddenly tilted upside down by the political upheaval. The actor revels in giving a full-bodied portrayal, presenting a character both wantonly licentious and daringly brave. The sequence in which he dashes into the streets of Constantinople in search of Christian witnesses to his impromptu wedding is delightful in its unexpected sense of frolic & fun. Fairbanks is ably matched by Nancy Carroll, deftly underplaying her role as his adoring servant. The sweetness of her character's simple nature shines through, as well as a steely resolve, as she endures dangers and hardships to be with the man she loves.

Lovely Lilyan Tashman, in one of her final roles before her early death, plays the scheming Russian courtesan who hopes to use Fairbanks as her ticket to the good life in Paris. Guy Kibbee, a very popular character actor at Warner's, appears for only a few moments at the end of the movie as a wealthy American visiting the Levant.

Movie mavens will recognize Mischa Auer as a Russian cavalry officer; beefy Dewey Robinson as a Bolshevik thug; nervous Frank Reicher as a duplicitous pawnbroker; as well as Mae Busch & Lee Kohlmar as the wedding witnesses--all uncredited.

So Bad It's Good

[DeDe-14 · 10/10 · 14 November 1999]

While I don't understand how in 1932 a movie could be made sympathizing with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, I do understand that Scarlet Dawn is a pre-Code film. Like most movies made between 1928 and 1934 (six of the best years in moviemaking, if you ask me), the lighting, sets, and photography are flawless. The print that is on video has perfect sound and picture quality. The costumes are delightfully ornate. Doug Jr. as Nikita Krasnoff is perfect, probably because he was the only actor on the Warners lot in 1932 with enough sex appeal to get away with what he got away with in the movie (i.e. sexual harassment). Nancy Carroll is his faithful servant and, later on in the film, wife. Lilyan Tashman plays a gossipy, scheming, glamour-gal mistress. While Lil and Nan sort of steal the show, their talents are slightly wasted. It's Doug who really captivates throughout, and considering how absolutely luscious he looks, the already short movie (just under an hour) flies by effortlessly. Scarlet Dawn is underrated, but extremely interesting, and the vintage 1917 war footage is a cute touch.

Another Great Movie From Warner Bros. 1932 Banner Year

[gerrytwo-438-470452 · 8/10 · 18 September 2013]

1932, the darkest year of the Great Depression, is also the year the Warner Bros. movie studio hits its peak. With William Dieterle as the director of "Scarlet Dawn," and Anton Grot as the art director, "Scarlet Dawn" moves at breakneck speed amid great sets. The cynical attitude of this movie is best summed up by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.'s character, Lt. Krasnoff, in a line right after Russian checkpoint guards shoot the car he had just been tossed out of at gunpoint. Krasnoff had paid for a ride out of Moscow with a bunch of jewels. The driver decided to dump Krasnoff and his companion at the side of the road, keeping all the jewels. After the shot up car bursts into flames and crashes over an embankment, Fairbanks' companion (played by Nancy Carroll) says: "They killed him. How horrible." Fairbank's response: "Stop sniveling. What's one thief more or less in this world anyway." This sort of callous attitude toward death by the star of the movie is something you never saw in major studio Hollywood movies for 20 years after the introduction of the Production Code of 1934. "Vera Cruz" had that sort of cynical attitude but that movie was made in 1954 by an independent film production company (co-owned by star Burt Lancaster).

Weaker Warner "B" Picture

[Michael_Elliott · 2 February 2010]

Scarlet Dawn (1932)

** (out of 4)

Extremely light "B" movie from Warner about nobleman Nikita Krasnoff (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) who along with his servant (Nancy Carroll) is forced out of Russia. The two try to find a better life for themselves but each place they land just erupts in more violence as the revolution grows stronger by the day. Okay, Warner gave director Dieterle 57-minutes to tell an epic story about the Russian revolution so it should come as no surprise that the end result really isn't all that good. You really can't blame the filmmakers or the cast but what can you do with such a short time. Different characters keep coming up every few minutes and they'll make a brief appearance and then just disappear. We don't get to know that much about them and we really don't get to know why they're there to begin with or why they go away so fast. The movie features Fairbanks in a pretty good performance as he at least manages to put some fire in the character and make you feel like you're watching something real. Carroll doesn't have the same luck nor does Guy Kibbee in his supporting role. The sets aren't at all believable and not for a second did I ever believe I was in Russia or anything where a revolution was really going on.

Hollywood lost in the chaos of the Russian revolution

[clanciai · 9/10 · 1 October 2020]

This is a typical Russian Revolution film, with all the chaos, the dreadful muddle, the constant introduction of new characters and their sudden disappearance, the reckless atrocities galore, the helpless people being most of them martyred and lost in anonymity in the whirling mass movements and the unfathomable pathos. Douglas Fairbanks Jr is a Russian aristocrat in the army who quickly has to change sides when the revolution comes and manages to escape all the way to Constantinople with a former servant girl, whom he marries, but other old female friends and mistresses turn up in Constantinople offering an alternative life, which he sacrifices for his love, and so on - there is no end to intrigues and adventures here, but they all crowd upon each other, leaving no space to breathe. The film is compressed into only 57 minutes while the original was twenty minutes longer, but it was still the pre-Code period, so those twenty minutes were probably cut away when the Code was established like a devastating censure for so many films. What strikes you here is the extremely competent direction by William Dieterle, the virtuoso acting by everyone (even Misha Auer turns up in a small part), the splendid camera work as early as 1932 and the impressing cinematography, accompanied by music that could fit Doctor Zhivago by Milan Roder, totally unknown and forgotten today. In brief, this is a gem of the early thirties not to be brushed aside but rather to be advanced and elevated in spite of its brevity to the rank of other classics of the same kind, like Sternberg's "The Last Command" and "Shanghai Express", Raoul Walsh's "The Yellow Ticket", Michael Curtiz' "British Agent", Jacques Feyder's "Knight Without Armour" and other heroic efforts to put the Russian revolution on screen, which all must be insufficient but which all at least give some impression of what that great human disaster for all civilization was all about.

unsatisfying sketch

[mukava991 · 3 December 2017]

"Scarlet Dawn" has an incomplete, unfinished feel. Perhaps it was filmed in haste and some scenes were botched and not redone. Who can tell? In any event, there is a touching performance by Nancy Carroll as a servant girl to a lusty young baron (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) who carouses and womanizes (among his girlfriends is the elegant Lilyan Tashman, splendidly portraying a fellow corrupt aristocrat). Comes the 1917 revolution, the aristos must flee, and Carroll loyally accompanies Fairbanks rather than turn him in to the revolutionaries. After a cross-country escape (a sort of abbreviated version of Marlene Dietrich and Robert Donat's trek several years later in "Knight Without Armour") they end up in Constantinople where he sinks from high cavalry officer to low dishwasher. The rest of the story will not be revealed here except to say that it seems strangely truncated.

The backstory unfolds with the liberal use of ultra-simplified newspaper headlines (""Czar Nicholas Denies Rumor of Revolution"; "Communists Stage Demonstration Despite Czar's Denial of Revolutionary Rumors. Thousands Gather to Parade Under Communist Banner"; "Communists Riot in Moscow"); the dramatized corollary to these headlines is a scene in which Fairbanks returns to his troop train after a 2-week leave; an anti-government soldier is hissing "no!" at fellow soldiers as their commander orders them to entrain for a return to the front. They refuse and fire on the officers.

Lastly, as in "Knight," the heroine's eye makeup and lipstick remain intact through the ordeal).