Sangre y arena (1917) User Reviews

Ibanez's Version

[boblipton · 7/10 · 6 May 2020]

The first movie version of Ibanez's BLOOD AND SAND was a Spanish production that was released in 1917. Ibanez wrote and co-directed the film. The print I saw, derived from the Filmoteca Valenciana, was in very good shape, although I don't think I've seen a movie tinted almost entirely in orange before.... meant to be blood red, I'm sure. The actors are obscure to this American, but the only one with more than one IMDb credit is José Portes; this was his first screen role, and he appeared in about twenty more movies over the next quarter of a century.

This version lacks the glamor of the better known versions of the movie. Bullfighting is viewed by the insiders as a tough, dangerous job, and glory is fleeting at best, and the money doesn't last. The audience is there for blood, and if it isn't the bull's, the fighter's will serve as well.

In common with other epics of this era, this makes use of the "illustrated text" method: first the title appears, then the performers act it out. The subplot of Plumitas the bandit is given a lot more coverage in this version, serving as a useful parallel to Gallardo's story. Street scenes set in the cities are a nice touch, as is the Easter Night Procession.

The IMDb lists the original run time at 66 minutes. This one came in at 59 minutes, alytough running speed may have had an impact. Certainly the story seemed complete, if a bit episodic. This was a very successful movie in Spain, which may have been the reason that Niblo made his 1922 version. It's very much a movie of its moment, with problems caused by the lack of innovation in moviemaking in the millieu. Still, it's nice to have this version which is truer to the author's intention.

Amazingly good for a film made during WW1.

[emuir-1 · 8/10 · 4 March 2018]

The first of several versions of Sangre y Arena (Blood and Sand) based on the novel by the best selling Spanish novelist Vicente Blasco Ibáñez. A comment on the shallowness of fame and adulation, this version was made in 1916 under the direction of the author, who also wrote the screenplay. Subsequent versions were made in 1922 starring Rudolph Valentino, 1941 with Tyrone Power and Rita Hayworth, and 1989 with Sharon Stone. While the 1941 version shot with 3- strip Technicolor is held as the gold standard, the original film stands up amazing well considering the limitations of film in 1916 (the year it was shot) and the fact that it was made during the first world war. I do not know if it was shown in the English speaking world as the only version existing has Spanish language title cards.

Several of Blasco Ibáñez's novels were filmed and both the novels and films can still be found today. Blood and Sand, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, both Rudolph Valentino vehicles. Torrent, with Greta Garbo, and Mare Nostrum can be a little harder to find. The original version of the Four Horsemen, an anti-war statement, is considered superior to the later 1962 blockbuster, and was a wildly successful film, one of the greatest moneymakers of all time, when it was released.

I am giving the film an 8, as the locations, photography and acting are excellent for a time when films were new. This must have really been something to the audiences of the time, and comparable with D.W. Griffith's 'Intolerance'. The acting is surprisingly free of the exaggerated gestures, forehead clasping, hand writing and over emoting of silent films, perhaps because it was a Spanish and not Hollywood production. Not surprisingly, the screenplay closely follows the plot of the novel without some of the additions and deletion of the later versions, with the exception of the critic, Curra, whom I am sure I remember from the novel.

The film has been restored and rebuilt from bits and pieces found in the Czech film archive and a private collection, is considerably shorter than the original length, as well as very patchy in parts. It also appears to have had fresh title cards in places. For the few really bad sections it would have been better to use stills with title cards explaining the action, as has been done with Rudolph Valentino's 'The Young Rajah'.

For a modern viewer, the rather buxom ladies are a little surprising and an indicator of changing tastes. None of them would be considered attractive today unless they shed half their weight. Despite this minor griping, for a film now 101 years old, shot on severely deteriorating nitrate film, it stands up very well and is interesting to those who like to compare the different versions of a work and see what early non-Hollywood cinema was like. One other interesting part is seeing the street scenes of beautiful Spanish cities at the beginning of the 20th century.