June 19, 1935
Lloyd Pantages
I Cover Hollywood
Los Angeles Examiner
Cary Grant is being tested for the lead in Captain Blood at Warners. If he gets it, it will be the second time he has been loaned from his home lot, Paramount, since his advent into the cinema. His only other loan was to Twentieth Century for Born to be Bad. Incidently, Captain Blood was originally slated for Robert Donat until the English courts decided that his contract with Warners was invalid and that he should remain in England with another company.
— Tim
As much as I LOVE Cary Grant in many of his cinematic efforts over the years, I don’t think he could “carry” the day (back in the day) on this one.
As was ABUNDANTLY evident, echoed in this enthusiastic review of December 27, 1935 titled “A Newcomer Named Errol Flynn in a Handsome Film Version of ‘Captain Blood’…”, the New York Times’ Andre Sennwald observed (tinyurl.com…):
“With a spirited and criminally good-looking Australian named Errol Flynn playing the genteel buccaneer to the hilt, the photoplay recaptures the air of high romantic adventure which is so essential to the tale.”
And so (and in his own words) without further adieu:
“Up that rigging, you monkeys! Aloft! There’s no chains to hold you now. Break out those sails and watch them fill with the wind that’s carrying us all to freedom!”
I agree, Karl. Cary is one of the greatest of all Hollywood talents, a genuine immortal. But Captain Blood belonged to Errol, as much as today (June 20th) does. Flynn was born to play Blood, Hood, and Boots – and that’s just the double ‘o’ moovies.
Blood was a role really worth calling home about, Karl. That’s the role that launched a thousand lips for Flynn.
[img
[/img]
Tim and Karl; I think that one only has to look at Cary Grant’s miscasting in Gunga Din with his way over-the-top performance to see he would have been wrong for Captain Blood. Have you ever seen a Cary Grant western? Ralph Schiller