El prisionero de Zenda

Hollywood has always had a philosophy, that if a film makes money, either do a sequel, or remake it! While sequels are most common (offering original cast members, older and less believable in their roles, performing variations of the same plot that made the original film popular...usually less successfully...), remakes have a long history, as well, with some remakes an improvement over the original (John Huston's THE MALTESE FALCON far outshines both of the earlier sound versions), some just as good (1939's BEAU GESTE, with Gary Cooper, has as loyal an audience as Ronald Colman's silent version), and some truly disastrous (why anyone would even CONSIDER remaking Frank Capra's LOST HORIZON, much less turning it into a 70s MUSICAL, defies comprehension!)

MGM, in their 1952 remake of 1937's classic THE PRISONER OF ZENDA, tried to surpass the earlier version by creating a 'scene-for-scene' duplicate of the film, while utilizing some of their biggest stars in each role, reworking Alfred Newman's original score, and shooting it all in glorious Technicolor. The end result, however, was a mixed bag...

Stewart Granger, MGM's resident 50s swashbuckler, certainly was more athletic than Ronald Colman in the lead, but lacked the older actor's panache, and more importantly, 'The Voice', that distinctive, oft-imitated but never duplicated speaking voice that made Colman so unique. It still wins hearts, nearly 50 years after his death, and was the reason Colman made the transition from a star of silent pictures to sound so effortlessly. While Deborah Kerr was as regally beautiful as Madeleine Carroll, she lacked the fragile quality that made Carroll's doomed love of the commoner Colman so heartbreaking. Louis Calhern, in C. Aubrey Smith's role, as Col. Zapt? No way! Robert Coote replacing David Niven as Fritz had some novelty value, as both would costar, twelve years later, in the television series, THE ROGUES, but the younger Niven was far more appropriate in the role of a young but loyal assistant to Zapt. While Robert Douglas was every bit as sinister as Raymond Massey as Black Michael, the most disastrous miscasting came with the film's other major villain, Rupert of Hentzau. While James Mason was a truly gifted actor, he was too old, and actually too villainous in the role! While the character has to be truly jaded and unscrupulous, he also has to be such a young, likable scoundrel that his escape, after the climactic duel, disappoints no one, not even the hero he nearly defeats. The role ideally suited Douglas Fairbanks Jr., whose prowess with a sword was unmatched, and whose scenes with Colman were instant classics of sophisticated wit. When Granger and Mason repeated the same lines, their exchanges came across as typical 'good guy vs. bad guy' dialog, lacking the unique chemistry Colman and Fairbanks brought to the roles.

As for shooting the film in Technicolor...While the regal color photography certainly made the Palace scenes more impressive (don't forget, Great Britain was crowning Elizabeth as Queen when the remake was released, and American audiences were rabid Anglophiles, totally enthralled by all the Pomp and Circumstance), it also 'dated' the story, making the adventure seem quaint and old-fashioned in the Cold War era. The black-and-white photography of 1937, with it's masterful use of light and shadow, gave the earlier version a timeless quality it still carries to this day.

David Niven, in his autobiography ('The Moon's a Balloon'), said he thought MGM's remake was a ridiculous idea, and that he was pleased that the newer production, even as a scene-for-scene copy, failed. While I think he was, perhaps, too hard on the Granger film, I have to agree that no other version has ever even come close to the magic of Ronald Colman's 1937 classic!

The old swashbuckling mythology in capital letters: King, Country, Duty, Courage, and Honor, featuring a handsome, fearless Hero; a beautiful and perfectly behaved Princess; a stalwart Elderly Advisor; a grasping Villain; his insinuating Right Hand; and so on. It's so stereotyped that it could take up a whole chapter of Carl Jung.

So it's amazing that this production manages to pull it off so well. Maybe it's the unusually effective screenplay, which doesn't waste a line, and somehow manages not to rehash creaky dialogue. Maybe it's the actors, who carry their roles with as much dignity as if this is the first time anyone's ever done them. Or maybe it's James Mason as the only recognizable human in the story, a charming and calculating psychopath with razor-sharp wit and stunning powers of manipulation.

However they did it, the results are a joy. Swordplay, love affairs, grand balls, royalty, and political intrigue - it all works. Put your brain in low gear, sit back, and enjoy the ride.

Next to the 1937 version with Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., this version of The Prisoner Of Zenda is the one most fondly remembered by movie audiences. If it doesn't quite have the panache of the Colman film, it makes up for it with the introduction of some nice color cinematography.

The casting of Stewart Granger in the double role of Rudolph Rassendyll and his royal cousin, the Crown Prince Rudolph of Ruritania and James Mason as the villainous Rupert of Hentzau is hardly some stock company casting. If Granger doesn't quite have Colman's flair for the spoken word and very few ever have, he makes a fine and dashing hero which parts he played very well, too well in his opinion on his career. As for Mason, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. took the Rupert part because he was advised it's one of the best villains ever created in drama. Mason who has also played some of the best villains on screen keeps up the fine tradition for that role.

The 1937 version benefited from having the world wide publicity of the constitutional crisis in the United Kingdom over Edward VIII choice of consort. I've wondered whether someone over at MGM after George VI died in early 1952 whether they thought it was now time to do another remake of The Prisoner Of Zenda in time to coincide with the publicity of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Which begs the question whether we'll get yet another version when Prince Charles eventually assumes the throne. We've seen over ten versions so far going back to the silent screen.

The women in the cast, Deborah Kerr and Jane Greer as Princess Flavia and Antoinette DeMauban respectively never come in for much discussion of their roles. The parts in relation to the hero are almost a carbon copy of the roles of Katharine DeVaucelles and Hugette from If I Were King. I've always thought that Greer as Antoinette plays one of the most tragic characters in popular literature. She loves a cold and forbidding man in Prince Michael, especially when played by Robert Douglas. But he's her man and when she does ever so slightly give in to the scheming Hentzau she regrets it when it means the death of her beloved. Personally why she falls for a cold fish that Michael is who can figure. But the heart does have its reasons.

As for Kerr her best scene is at the end when she realizes she has been hoodwinked, but in a scheme for the greater good of the kingdom. She knows what her obligations are and she too can't afford to follow her heart.

Something tells me we're far from done with The Prisoner Of Zenda. Try and figure out who could play these roles today with the flair of the players in this version, let alone the one from 1937.

I bought a duel set of "The Prisoner of Zenda" that contains both 1937 and 1952 versions, and like the 1952 version much more. First of all, Granger's handsomeness and style fits more to the fairy-tale adventure story of prince and princess, Coleman is too sophisticated for the Rassendyall character. Other casts are better also; Kerr is much prettier and princess like, and Mason is a more impressive villain. I also think that the fighting scenes are better, more elegant and better choreographed. With no less significance is the color ,makes the costume and characters look more sensational, and gives more feeling for the romantic fairy tale .

This movie is pure entertainment, I first saw it in high school, loved it, I still enjoy it 30 years later .

Knowing nothing of this film, the book or previous versions, I watched TPOZ expecting nothing but a star-studded cast. I sat enchanted throughout, undisturbed by thoughts of "carbon copy" scenes, recycled musical scores and previous performances. For me the movie was timeless, not a word nor scene wasted, Granger and Kerr were engaging lovers. The sword fight was one of the best. The only "glaring" production fault was the 300 watt shadow. Otherwise, fantastic cinematography and score, and wonderful Granger, Kerr and Mason.